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
Palpable (talk | contribs)
293 edits
→New source: reply to Palpable (CD)
Line 390: Line 390:
::::::::::That's an odd interpretation. [[WP:BURDEN]] says '''the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material'''.
::::::::::That's an odd interpretation. [[WP:BURDEN]] says '''the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material'''.
::::::::::Bon Courage added four different claims to the article, in wikivoice, sourced to a piece which is clearly marked as opinion. It sounds like this was intentional rather than a good faith mistake. - [[User:Palpable|Palpable]] ([[User talk:Palpable|talk]]) 21:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Bon Courage added four different claims to the article, in wikivoice, sourced to a piece which is clearly marked as opinion. It sounds like this was intentional rather than a good faith mistake. - [[User:Palpable|Palpable]] ([[User talk:Palpable|talk]]) 21:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::It appears that you disagree on interpretation of the consensus view. That's fine. But it does not mean the article will depict your personal view instead. As I said, there are multiple other sources which support the statements:{{pb}}''Nplusone'', Andrew Liu. Spring 2022. [https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-42/politics/lab-leak-theory-and-the-asiatic-form/"Lab-Leak Theory and the “Asiatic” Form"]:{{pb}}
:::::::::::::{{tq| The lab-leak theory came to legitimacy by a circuitous path. It was first auditioned by Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo shortly after lockdown started, but journalists were quick to distance themselves from its overtones of crude Trumpian racism...the ''New York Times'' reported triumphantly that..."Asians have trusted their governments to do the right thing, and they were willing to put the needs of the community over their individual freedoms.” Such examples attempt to repudiate racist stereotypes of Asian disloyalty and backwardness by foregrounding Asian modernity and collectivity backwardness by foregrounding Asian modernity and collectivity.}}
:::::::::::{{pb}}''Columbia Journalism Review''. Jon Allsop. June 2021. "[https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/lab_leak_theory_credibility.php The lab-leak mess]":{{pb}}
:::::::::::::{{tq|But virologists are generally more credible than Trump, who does lie systematically, and did seek to blame China for the pandemic to distract from his own dismal performance; various actors, meanwhile, have weaponized the lab-leak theory as part of a racist agenda that has had very real consequences. A given theory can be a conspiracy and racist and, at root, true, just as a given theory can be scientifically grounded and not racist and, at root, false; who is propounding it, and why, and based on what, matters. The mistake many in the media made was to cast the lab-leak theory as inherently conspiratorial and racist, and misunderstand the relation between those properties and the immutable underlying facts. It would also be wrong, now, to assume that the lab-leak theory is inherently clean of those taints.}}
:::::::::::{{pb}}{{cite journal | last1 = Hardy | first1 = Lisa J. | title = Connection, Contagion, and COVID-19 | journal = Medical Anthropology | date = 17 September 2020 | volume = 39 | issue = 8 | pages = 655–659 | issn = 0145-9740 | eissn = 1545-5882 | doi = 10.1080/01459740.2020.1814773 | pmid = 32941085 | url = }}:{{pb}}
:::::::::::::{{tq| People question if scientists and/or political leaders created the virus in a lab and/or intentionally leaked it into the general public. Blame in conspiracies of COVID-19 is distributed differently across beliefs. Some question actions of the Chinese government and/or mention relationships with, for instance, people from Wuhan, China, reflecting xenophobic ideologies.}}
:::::::::::{{pb}}''Beijing Review''. Josef Gregory Mahoney. August 2021. [http://www.bjreview.com/Opinion/Voice/202108/t20210823_800256223.html "The unscientific surmise that COVID-19 was spread by Wuhan lab is racist"]{{pb}}
:::::::::::::{{tq|The "lab leak lie" is racist. To be clear, the unscientific surmise that COVID-19 was spread intentionally or unintentionally by a Chinese government laboratory in Wuhan is racist. From the beginning, this lie was an expression of dog-whistle politics, one that has exploited longstanding racial stereotypes, and that has in turn deepened anti-Asian racism in many countries around the world.}}
:::::::::::{{pb}}''Scientific American''. Stephan Lewandowsky, Peter Jacobs, Stuart Neil. March 2022. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/ "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth"]{{pb}}
:::::::::::::{{tq|Motivated reasoning based on blaming an “other” is a powerful force against scientific evidence. Some politicians—most notably former President Donald Trump and his entourage—still push the lab-leak hypothesis and blame China in broad daylight...Ironically the xenophobic instrumentalization of the lab-leak hypothesis may have made it harder for reasonable scientific voices to suggest and explore theories because so much time and effort has gone into containing the fallout from conspiratorial rhetoric.}}
:::::::::::{{pb}}How do you suggest we depict this view in the article? And what evidence do you have that it is not the consensus, given these sources? —&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> 01:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


== This article states the lab leak is a conspiracy theory ==
== This article states the lab leak is a conspiracy theory ==

Revision as of 01:17, 15 November 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 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (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

Removal of Lancet report's Sep 2022 statement on origins

My edit regarding the September 2022 Lancet Covid commission report as mentioned in a Washington Post editorial was removed by an user being "profringe" and "already covered". The removed passage was about the commission's statement that zoonotic spillover and lab leak hypotheses both remain plausible and that both should be investigated. This was not covered in the 2022 developments section of this article. Is this a controversial statement that needed to be removed? How is something written and published by the editorial board of the Washington Post regarding a Lancet commission report's finding be fringe? Are those reliable mainstream sources or fringe publications? I don't understand.-Zaheen (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is highly controversial, and you misrepresented it by focusing on Wuhan when the report was more leaning into the possibility the virus somehow originated from the USA. We have the reaction of actual experts to this stuff (insofar as there is any as scientists have otherwise ignored it). More would be undue. Bon courage (talk) 08any:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I didn't misrepresent anything nor focused on anything particular. The WaPo editorial clearly says: "The [Lancet] panel did not resolve the ongoing dispute about the virus’s origins in China, whether it came from a zoonotic spillover or an inadvertent laboratory leak, saying both are “still plausible.” The report properly calls for “unbiased, independent, transparent, and rigorous work” to investigate the origins, including at laboratories in Wuhan that were engaged in risky research known as “gain of function,” in which viruses similar to the pandemic strain were being genetically manipulated." And the Lancet commission report itself says in its executive summary that "[t]he proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation."
Neither the WaPo Editorial nor the Lancet report's own executive summary talks about the virus originating in the USA. How did I misrepresent anything? I just added the above statements in a rephrased short passage as the latest development as of September 2022. Why does this need to be removed? --Zaheen (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even the WaPo Op-ed does mention it obliquely "Sachs correctly called on the U.S. National Institutes of Health to be more open about its role in funding research in China". The suggestion that the virus is of US origin is emphasized in the report as the other sources we use relay (and multiple sources beside). Better to use actual experts (i.e. virologists) to deliver an assessment, than the inexpert opinion writers of a newspaper - especially the WaPo which as a lab leak cheerleader has unclean hands. The fringe nonsense needs no more exposure in the article. Bon courage (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your viewpoint, but I still fail to see how that is related to what I added. I added a short passage (as the latest development in Sep 2022) about WaPo's reporting about the Lancet report which stated in its summary that both origin hypotheses remain feasible and need to be investigated further. Oblique references here and there to the hypothetical possibility of an US involvement in the WaPo editorial or somewhere buried in the 50+ page Lancet report doesn't automatically invalidate that report's summary position or the WaPO reporting of it, or does it? Isn't Lancet considered a leading and serious medical journal? How is the summary position of a Lancet commission report "fringe nonsense"? Is it unreasonable to mention this Lancet report in the 2022 development section (if not lead) and then add any leading/reliable virologists' reaction to it? Wouldn't that be more NPOV and better organized chronologically? I don't have much more to add to this at this point, but I would like to see other wikipedians' opinion on this. --Zaheen (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just read on foreignpolicy dot com the virologist Angela Rasmussen's dismissal of the Lancet commission's viewpoint on lab leak origin being viable, based on her own published research concludig Huanan market to be the epicenter of the (most probably zoonotic) spillover event(s), not WIV. Why not mention both Lancet and Angela's critique to it then? --Zaheen (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed to death in multiple locations (including Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and WP:BLP/N). The "Lancet" report does not even mention the WIV wrt virus origin: even the lab-leak stans are pissed off about it.[5] The author of this bit (Sachs) sacked all the relevant experts and then "personally oversaw" this content himself. He has no relevant qualifications and has an established record of spouting questionable notions about SVC2 origin and rubbing shoulders with conspiracy theorists. He is apparently fond of suggesting (as in the this report) that the USA was somehow to blame for COVID. Wikipedia is not unduly going to elevate this fringe nonsense into some kind of viable position; we merely briefly report it with some sane, mainstream context. Bon courage (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this bit (Sachs) sacked all the relevant experts and then "personally oversaw" this content himself. Was there a source for this that I've missed in the various discussions? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "personally oversaw" detail is cited to the Independent source currently. We don't cover the panel sacking. It might be going into the weeds too much for an article about virus origin, but I'd not strongly object to including it; it's mentioned in that existing source ("He broke up the first task force in the summer of 2021 as worries grew that the group was biased in favour of the idea that the virus had come from the natural world. While the task force never regrouped ...") Bon courage (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Task force chair Jeffrey Sachs, economics professor at Columbia University in New York, told the Wall Street Journal that he had shut down the scientist led investigation into how the covid-19 pandemic started because of concerns about its links to the EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit organisation run by task force member Peter Daszak [6] --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is the danger of going into the weeds. I believe in the end he believed every single member of the team was lying to him; it's wasn't just a Daszak issue. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the WaPo which as a lab leak cheerleader has unclean hands This is absolutely risible next to the documented bias and financial conflicts of interest behind the efforts to prematurely shut down lab leak investigations.[1] Zoonotic origin is *likely* and lab-leak is *plausible*. Any other framing is suspect and pro-fringe. To be clear, *denying* lab leak is plausible is pro-fringe. Sennalen (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Sennalen (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our article does not quote any scientific reliable source saying that lab-leak is plausible. You seem to know sources that do. Please share them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be the original WHO report and the later SAGO report, which are still the most authoritative assessments we have? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article, the WHO report assessed introduction through a laboratory incident to be "extremely unlikely" and not supported by any available evidence,[46][96] although the report stated that this possibility could not be wholly ruled out without further evidence and the SAGO report says the strongest evidence is still around a zoonotic transmission. Both are a long shot from calling a lab leak "plausible". --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering "plausible" and a "possibility [which] could not be wholly ruled out" to be roughly synonymous. But yes, there's a reason we provide that more complete context, and quote the language of the reports rather than paraphrasing in a way that could give a different impression. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.science.org/content/article/fights-over-confidentiality-pledge-and-conflicts-interest-tore-apart-covid-19-origin-probe

I still don't understand the removal of the bit I added on the summary of Lancet commission report. It says lab leak remains a plausible hypotheses and further investigation is needed. How is this different from the WHO SAGO report which also remains open to the possibility of a "breach" from a "lab incident"? Is WHO SAGO also promoting "fringe nonsense"? Even Peter Daszak cowrote an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published 8 days ago (10 Oct 2022) which states that "a laboratory leak cannot be ruled out" even if it is "widely considered less probable". Is that also promoting fringe nonsense? So what is the point of removing the Lancet report bit I added which essentially says the same thing? Zaheen (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already say the report suggests it could have come from a US lab, so adding that it says it could plausibly have come from a lab in general, adds nothing. What you seem to be missing is the US-origin spin of the Lancet report, maybe because the WaPo op-ed is rather misleading about this. Bon courage (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "remaining open" and "cannot be ruled out" are far weaker than calling it "plausible". We "cannot rule out" the virus was planted by aliens either, and "remaining open" is what a scientist says when they are bending over backwards. To call something "plausible" means to embrace it to a certain amount. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the Lancet commision report's main thrust about the origin of Covid is not that it comes from the US, but, as it is clear from its executive summary, that the lab leak hypothesis remains on the table and that further investigation is needed. Why does this article address the US involvment reference buried in the details only? I still think a passage about this summary statement can be included in an article titled "Covid lab leak theory" under the section 2022 developments. If necessary, any reputable virologists' vehement disagreement with such a statement can also be included right after. I mean it was published in Lancet, a reputable medical journal, not some tabloid, and it was picked up by WaPo, a mainstream daily. And it was then criticized vehemently by at least one virologist Angela Rasmussen on foreignpolicy dot com. So why suppress all these recent "developments" in the section titled 2022 development? Why not report it all in a short passage? Is there an implicit ban on mentioning such statements?
Also, why not mention all the differing opinions like Daszak's PNAS article's "cannot be ruled out", Lancet's "plausible", and WHO SAGO's statement that "it remains important...to evaluate the possibility of the introduction of SARSCov2 through a laboratory incident" quoted as is. What is the harm here? Especially in an article dedicated to the lab leak theory? Otherwise, why have this article in the first place? This article's whole raison d'être is to present information about lab leak theory, no? I am genuinely confused. --Zaheen (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this article address the US involvment reference buried in the details only? This is probably regional. In the West, most lableakies blame China, while in China, they blame the US. The Chinese Wikipedia does have one section on US origin (美国基因武器论反向衍生版本), but it contains only one sentence about it. The China part is pretty extensive.
The China lobbyist Sachs living in the West is a special case; of course he is a US lableaky, while the anti-China hardliners in the US are China lableakies. All this reminds me strongly of the recent SI article Schrödinger’s Bin Laden: The Irrational World of Motivated Reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100% we do not need this mention, it violates WP:HOWEVER, and is additionally quite WP:PROFRINGE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The wp:however can be solved by simply removing the word "however." As for wp:profringe, the Lancet Commission Report and the WaPo editorial about the Lancet report are not fringe publications. Even WHO has a response to the Lancet report. Why would WHO do that if it was a fringe publication? These are considered reputable reliable sources. The bit I added (with inline citation of a WaPo editorial) says that according to the Lancet report, the lab leak theory remains plausible and further investigation is needed. This is in line with WHO SAGO report as well, which says lab leak theory investigation "remains important". I don't see how similar statements published in a reputable medical journal Lancet and WHO SAGO report can be considered profringe? I don't see the point of suppressing these. If we only consider expert virologist opinions to be valid and everything else profringe, as I feel what is happening here, then using that extremely narrow, uncharitable and almost-deletionist criterion, this article will become pointless and almost non-existent, because the virologists who have published so far seem to be overwhelmingly dismissive of a lab leak conjecture. Then the article will be about 3-4 lines. What is the point of having this article then?--Zaheen (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We cover the Lancet report accurately already. The novel ideas Sachs contributed to the it are WP:FRINGE, yes. This article could be deleted and any usable content merged to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Bon courage (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I don't think we cover the Lancet report accurately in this article, because the Lancet report's summary position on the origin is not accurately represented in the article, rather a certain apparently controversial assertion buried somewhere in the detail has been amplified and given the most attention. We cannot pretend to read minds; we don't know whether it was Sachs or whether it was the entire commission reading signing off on the final version. That's not our job here. What we can do is to accurately represent the summary position as it was reported in a mainstream daily such as WaPo, which more or less coincides with the summary position of the report, and I quoted both of them above. Secondly, if you think this article could be deleted, then why don't you start a deletion request? I think that would be a better course of action to go for the jugular than the micromanaging and gatekeeping stance currently adopted. Obviously I didn't get the memo that we cannot add non-virologist assertions published by a reputable medical journal and covered by a mainstream American daily because they are considered "fringe" and by extension that much of this article can also be considered fringe, hence worthy of deletion, by a certain user. Mea culpa. --Zaheen (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much of your logic does not work.
  • Why would WHO do that if it was a fringe publication? Not being answered by the WHO is not a characteristic of fringe ideas. "How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public" (for some reason I cannot include the link) is one example of a response by the WHO to fringe claims.
  • This is in line with WHO SAGO report as well, which says lab leak theory investigation "remains important" How does that translate into "lab leak is plausible"? I also think the investigation remains important, because, although it will not shut up the reality-resistant core of lableakers, it will reduce the support they receive from fence-sitters. And I definitely do not think a lab leak is plausible.
  • If we only consider expert virologist opinions to be valid then that means we are following the WP:FRINGE guideline. Invalid opinions by ignorant and ideologically biased laymen can be used but have to be balanced by actual knowledge. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand correctly, you agree with WHO SAGO report that a lab leak investigation remains "important" to "evaluate the possibility of the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population through a laboratory incident", but at the same time you want to draw a line in the sand when it comes to using the specific word "plausible" as it was used in the Lancet Commission Report? But if we are really splitting hair about the semantics of it all, then the term "plausibility" (seemingly reasonable and appears likely on the surface) used in the Lancet report is actually weaker than the term "possibility" (a term which has the connotation of referring to something potentially real, which might or might not happen) used in the WHO SAGO report. And also, we can keep content about the media coverage on the tweet by some random twitter user, or the coverage of an assertion by "ignorant and ideologically biased laymen" such as TV's political commentator Tucker Carlson in this article, but we cannot add a relevant passage about the Lancet Commission Report published by a reputable medical journal in 2022 and include it in the 2022 development section without it getting removed? I seriously don't understand the logic in this. --Zaheen (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about the relevant portion of the Lancet report is already included. Time to drop the WP:STICK methinks. Bon courage (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. But I also think I have exhausted everything I wanted to say. No point in pursuing this.--Zaheen (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Gorski's opinions are stated in wikivoice. Sennalen (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it represents a consensus of experts, whereas the Lancet report does not.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any Evidence for the Natural Origin Theory?

OFF-TOPIC
This page is for discussion of the article, not the topic itself. WP:NOTAFORUM— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I see this article claims in the lead that there's no evidence for the lab leak theory, although it's beyond abundant and conclusive at this point. On the other other hand, is there even a scintilla of evidence for the natural origin theory? --2600:1700:B020:1490:9427:D713:7A5:2990 (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the cited source:

Under any laboratory escape scenario, SARS-CoV-2 would have to have been present in a laboratory prior to the pandemic, yet no evidence exists to support such a notion and no sequence has been identified that could have served as a precursor.

This article is not about "the natural origin theory". Bon courage (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing legitimate scientific inquiry into the lab leak theory

The topic has always been plagued with nationalistic and financial motivations to prematurely spin lab leak theories as illegitimate. Such pressures have only intensified amid a deficit of skepticism about this year's wet market statistical analyses. What is the best phrasing to use in the lede to explain that lab leak theories are not only misinformation or conspiracy theories, but also the the subject of ongoing legitimate scientific research?[1][2][3][4] Sennalen (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ Canuti, Marta; Bianchi, Silvia; Kolbi, Otto. "Waiting for the truth: is reluctance in accepting an early origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 delaying our understanding of viral emergence?". BMJ Global Health. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008386.
  2. ^ Domingo, Jose. "An updated review of the scientific literature on the origin of SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.114131.
  3. ^ Seo, S. Niggol. "9. Some Yet Unresolved Questions and Mysteries About the COVID-19 Pandemic". The Economics of Pandemics. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-91021-1_9.
  4. ^ "Controversial new research suggests SARS-CoV-2 bears signs of genetic engineering". The Economist.
Having a sentence which says "there is no evidence to support this" has absolutely nothing to do with future research. It is the most accurate and reserved statement that can be made about this topic at present. It does not forestall future evidence from existing, it does not prevent anyone from inquiring further. There are already plenty of sentences in the lead which portray the fact that it is currently being investigated. (despite the fact that most relevant experts agree it is extremely unlikely, with one saying it is "dead"). — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. "Some scientists agree that the possibility of a lab leak origin should be examined as part of ongoing investigations,[24][25]" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, and as for "The topic has always been plagued with nationalistic and financial motivations" the OP needs to drop such conspiracy theories. Wikipedia has long-established norms for dealing with WP:FRINGE stuff of all stripes. Bon courage (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a conspiracy theory. Whether or not it has enough sourcing to go into Wikipedia is another matter. But it's not helpful to accuse someone of pushing a "conspiracy theory" when there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support what they are saying. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adoring nanny there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support many conspiracy theories. E.g.
Circumstantial evidence is basically the origin of most conspiracy theories. Let me ask you this:
At what point would you accept that the lab leak is a conspiracy theory? What level of evidence in favor of other explanations (or against the theory itself) would be enough for that label to be justified?
We have sourcing for it in RSes. That sourcing has only grown stronger over time. Not all versions are explicitly conspiracy theories, but certainly some are (e.g. intentional leak, bioweapon, genetic engineering of a hidden virus, etc). These are literally theories which propose a conspiracy of motivated actors engaged in a cover-up. And we have sources which back-up this characterization. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Especially given that the Chinese government has done everything in it's power to destroy or limit the availability of every piece of evidence from the Wuhan lab (which is in-and-of-itself 'circumstantial' evidence of the lab-leak theory). At some point you have to realise that direct 'smoking gun' evidence won't emerge, because the people who have that evidence (the Chinese Government) are in no way going to let that information get out. We have a new study published (preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.18.512756v1) indicating that the virus is very unlikely to have a natural origin, given that the cleavage sites are very coincidentally located in 'ideal' locations (exactly the sorts of locations that scientists would put those cleavage sites). We know that Whuhan had humanised mice and applied for a grant to use them for coronavirus gain-of-function research, it isn't a stretch to realise that's exactly what they did. This sort of evidence will continue to come out, and at some point, if it walk's like a duck, and quacks like a duck... — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 20:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That study is a preprint, not peer-reviewed, and not authored by anyone with viral genetics background. On the other hand, we have a renowned viral geneticist saying the exact opposite in a peer-reviewed journal: [7] What you are detailing is best described as motivated reasoning. We have multiple experts describing the fact that no evidence exists for this theory, and yet you have described here all the circumstantial inferences which have led you to believe it is still likely. Contrast this with the multiple studies which have come out describing all the real and existing evidence for a zoonotic origin.
Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But good high quality evidence which describes why the virus did not spread outwards from a laboratory (which we have) is a nail in the coffin. Good high quality evidence which shows multiple animal viruses which have mutations leading towards SARS-CoV-2 (which we have) is another nail. Good high quality evidence which shows that the virus has natural percentages of certain codons, and has no codon optimization (which we have) is another nail. And so on. What you have described is a "god of the gaps." As in Intelligent design. The lab leak theory thrives in a lack of evidence and presence of suspicion.
Overall, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. What is important is: "Do experts in this field have a consensus that the lab leak theory is less likely?" Yes. Distrusting those experts in favor of our preferred narrative is not what we typically do on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you say about zoonotic origin is completely true, but also completely missing the point. Did the covid virus descend from a zoonotic virus? Of course. Almost no one is arguing that the virus was wholly manufactured from scratch in a lab. However, there is no evidence for a natural zoonotic origin over a lab leak. The 'evidence' for a zoonotic origin fails to differentiate between a 'natural' zoonosis and a zoonosis that either happened in a lab, or was helped along by gain of function research. The lab-leak theory and a zoonotic origin are not mutually exclusive. In fact, given the area of research focus at the Wuhan lab, any precursor viruses that they were working with would necessarily have had a zoonotic origin.
The real question is whether the virus was collected and brought to the Wuhan lab. Whether gain of function research was being conducted on one or more strains of the virus. Whether it was 'trained' on humanised mice to make it better at infecting human. Or even whether it was simply due to infected bats being studied at the Wuhan lab, or a wild (collected) virus that was being studied at the lab and infected a researcher.
Note that every lab-leak scenario above is still consistent with a 'zoonotic' origin! All of them are still lab leaks, and there is lots of circumstantial evidence that they are quite possible, even likely scenarios. All of these scenarios seem a much more likely scenario than a random animal at a seafood market having somehow had contact with a bat, which somehow then got transmitted to a human (add the unlikelihood of all of that allegedly happening within spitting distance of the premier bat coronavirus research laboratory that had on file the closest known related virus to the one that mysteriously appeared only a few kilometers away!).
The only scenario where it wouldn't be classified as 'zoonosis' would be if researchers had manually modified the virus (e.g. furin cleavage site and others have been proposed) to make it able to infect humans. Whether this happened is up for debate, and there doesn't seem much evidence one way or the other (the lab notes have not been released or allowed to be examined by the WHO). In any case, a virus that was heavily trained in humanised mice, for example, might end up optimising itself in a similar way to one that was cut and spliced, which is what some have argued. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 01:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think what's going on here, is that we're now getting pretty deep into the weeds scientifically speaking. As to what is and is not possible, how it would work, etc.
And I have to say, as someone with a PhD in virology, specifically focused on high security aerosolized pathogens, I in many ways felt I should defer to people who know coronaviruses. Because many of the specifics of viral genetics I knew a great deal about, but I also know there's quite a few complexities in these details. Do you have any background or formal training in molecular virology?
There's a reason why, on wikipedia, we defer to the experts. Because it's really easy to make a fallacious argument sound very credible. And extremely easy to formulate theories like this which have no true evidence in favor, but which "sound" really good. I would say one of the most important aspects of everything you've detailed is what it requires in terms of the human component. And this I feel very comfortable speaking on since I've worked in high-security labs, some of them overseas. Every single one of the things you've just thrown out there requires a large group of people to say absolutely nothing about it. It requires a lot of people who would be able to reveal the secret, to keep the secret. It's not a small group.
And that's the nature of conspiracies. In the McCarthyist framing, it would require "a conspiracy so immense" as to be absurd en face. And we're not just talking about Chinese citizens here, either. There would be the many overseas collaborators we know about, the many people who have visited the lab over the years, the lowliest technicians to the post-docs in labs in other countries now. There would be the people who sold them the primers necessary to do the work. The difficulty of keeping an animal colony large enough to "evolve" this virus from the ones we know they had. All of these actors would be complicit in the cover-up. And none of them could blab about it to anyone.
As the conspiracy required gets larger, the theory becomes less plausible. Because, make no mistake, this is a theory which requires a massive coordinated effort of like-minded individuals to keep something like this secret. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have multiple biology degrees, but no, not specifically molecular virology. I reject any argument from authority however.
As for your other point; I don't believe that it would require "a conspiracy so immense" as to be absurd en face. The majority of any co-conspirators would be Chinese government employees and officials, and foreigners involved are virologists with every incentive not to reveal that their field of study has resulted in the worst humanitarian and economic disaster of the past half century (good luck getting any funding for future research once the public is told that!).
This argument is completely pointless however, since people in the know HAVE come forward, saying that this research was indeed happening at the lab in question. We know that funding for gain of function research was given to the Wuhan Lab, and we know that they applied for grants for exactly the sort of research in mice that could have led to development of the Covid virus. What we don't have is 'smoking gun' proof, since all of the documents that would prove it beyond any doubt were obviously covered up well before the pandemic ever 'officially' started.
Or do you think that the Chinese Government flat denying any access to the data at the lab in question to the WHO and other investigators isn't the least bit suspicious? There clearly IS a conspiracy, it isn't even a question; the obvious secrecy happening, the disappearances of Chinese nationals that worked at the lab, and others that have spoken out in China. If there was nothing to hide, they would have every incentive not to be shown to be hiding it.
A conspiracy is not 'absurd', but in fact the obvious conclusion given the evidence available. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 09:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A dictatorship like China will keep foreigners out of everything by default. That is evidence of nothing. Your logic is the same as that of UFOlogists drawing conclusions from the fact that the military is keeping things secret, to them keeping aliens secret.
And by excluding the competent scientists as sources, you immunize yourself against anything that could refute the conspiracy, the same way climate change deniers are defining away climatologists by making them part of their conspiracy. This is the nature of conspiracy theories: they put a write protection on themselves.
Can we please go back to improving the article now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a strong argument myself. Of course, "conspiracies are hard" has nothing to do with virology. The most reliable source on the practicality of a coverup is the report from the US Intelligence Agencies.
The dismissive connotation of "conspiracy theory" is no longer appropriate when coverups are well documented. China destroyed early lab evidence, and we only know about the FCS insertion grant proposal because of a leak. Mostly the intelligence agencies believed with low confidence that the coverups were part of a culture of secrecy rather than hiding anything material. - Palpable (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Palpable Perhaps "obvious conclusion" is too strong of wording from me. It is certainly possible that this is just symptomatic of a "a culture of secrecy", as you say. My main point was that it was not appropriate to just dimiss the theory on the basis of "too big to hide", when in fact hiding stuff is what the Chinese do best, and there is evidence all over the place of stuff being hidden during this outbreak.
@Hob Gadling I wasn't excluding all competent scientists as sources, but you have to admit that the Lancet article was the main source that got the ball rolling on the "lab leak is a conspiracy theory" and Peter Daszak had no business getting involved in this, given his documented conflict of interest due to his history with EcoHealth and with the Wuhan Lab. If he had any integrity whatsoever he would not have involved himself in trying to shape the story. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 01:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept LL is incorrect if someone finds a close natural ancestor of COVID-19, infecting a wild animal species. At that time, further belief in LL would become a conspiracy theory. However, such discovery would not make it conspiracy to believe LL today, any more than it was conspiracy to believe, prior to exploration of the Antarctic, that the Southern Ocean extended all the way to the South Pole. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belief that the Southern Ocean extends all the way to the south pole did not, at any point in history, require one to believe in a conspiracy of people acting in secret. Lab leak does, right at this very moment, require that belief. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, if that's your definition. But if that's your definition, true conspiracy theories happen all the time, so much that a lot of countries have conspiracy (criminal) as a defined criminal offense. And if that's your definition, it's not sensible to ask people to drop pushing something because it's a conspiracy theory. I would also note that your definition is weaker than the definition adopted at Conspiracy Theory. So it's misleading to say that "LL is a conspiracy theory", then when challenged, to fall back on a weaker definition. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my definition, it's the definition widely accepted and exactly the same one as at conspiracy theory: A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[3][4][5] when other explanations are more probable. Unless you take issue with "when other explanations are more probable" which, if so, then there are quite a few places in this article I'd expect you'd want to omit. Namely all the parts where we say there is no evidence in favor, that it is less likely, etc. As to what you say here: And if that's your definition, it's not sensible to ask people to drop pushing something because it's a conspiracy theory I don't believe I have said that or requested that. I want, in general, for us to push towards NPOV.
Or perhaps you take issue with this other part of the definition: A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy. But we have that as well. The consensus is that the zoonotic theory is the most likely. Perhaps it is time for a new RFC. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite yet, but soon. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think I would agree, we aren't there yet. It's definitely been building as scientific evidence in favor of zoonosis has mounted. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence of a zoonotic origin has always been as circumstantial as the lab leak origin. More circumstantial honestly, given that there were no bats at the Wuhan market, and therefore it is difficult to concoct a reasonable explanation as to how a bat coronavirus escaped from that market (the closest relatives to that virus aren't even remotely near Wuhan anyway). The only reason the zoonotic theory spread faster than the lab-leak theory and gained general acceptance was because of the Lancet article (which was written by virologists who have since been linked to the Whuan lab), and because Trump came out in favour of the Lab-leak theory (and almost all of the media instantly knee-jerked anything Trump said when he was president). Since Wikipedia follows consensus, we have had to follow the flood of news articles supporting the Zoonotic theory, and state sources that didn't want to antagonise China, even though everyone who has researched the topic knows that it's a load of crap. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 20:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many factual inaccuracies in this comment that I don't think I can address them all. For one, we don't need bats to be at the Wuhan market. For two, that is not the only reason that the zoonotic theory spread faster. it spread faster because it is the most common way for pandemics to start in known human history. 99% of the time, it's the explanation. To the rest of your comment, like this: "even though everyone who has researched the topic knows that it's a load of crap" I have no response, and it is apparent that you already believe you have the answer. I don't think this is the venue to air out our personal opinions of the theories themselves. We should ground our articles in the sources, and the experts. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more clear that I was referring to a "natural" zoonotic origin. It is of course perfectly possible that the virus had a zoonotic origin, and also escaped from a lab, in fact that does seem the most likely scenario for a zoonotic origin (researchers who visted caves or who were handling samples becoming infected). Some sources have pointed out that it is too coincidental that a wild virus would jump to humans within spitting of the world's premier coronavirus laboratory, while others have pointed out that it is too coincidental that a lab-leaked virus would appear to propagate from a wetmarket containing live animals. Either way we are left with a "too big coincidence", of which there doesn't seem any way to reconcile. There are explanations as to how both might happen (a lab researcher visiting the market, or it truly just being a coincidence), either way something unlikely happened. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've expanded the definition again. The key phrase is "when other explanations are more probable." Your post "proving" that LL is a "literal conspiracy theory" didn't prove that part, nor could it have. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, where did I claim to prove anything? Please refrain from putting words in my mouth or taking this conversation off-topic and remain civil. Thanks. As to " when other explanations are more probable" we have the following in the article already, well-sourced:
  • The [lab leak] hypothesis is not supported by any evidence.
  • Some versions, particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.
  • Most scientists have remained skeptical of the idea, citing a lack of supporting evidence, while a minority of scientists regard both a lab leak and natural origin as equally valid
  • There is no evidence that any laboratory had samples of SARS-CoV-2, or an plausible ancestor virus, prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic
etc. etc. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The [zoonotic] hypothesis is not supported by any evidence.
  • Some versions, particularly those alleging certain species of animals were present the Whan Market, are based on misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.
  • Many scientists have remained sceptical of either theory, citing a lack of supporting evidence, while a minority of scientists regard both a lab leak and natural origin as equally valid
  • The Chinese government has not allowed the WHO or any other investigation into whether any laboratory had samples of SARS-CoV-2, and reportedly took their database of 22000 viruses offline three months prior to the official start of the pandemic.
etc. etc. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 21:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike your comment, as it does not represent quotations from the article, as mine does. it misrepresents several quotes out of context and manipulates the wording in favor of your personal opinion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was entirely the point of the comment (you'll note that I never claimed them to be quotes). The wording of our article is biased in such a way as to misrepresent the facts and to indicate a certain conclusion when in fact there is no evidence one way or the other. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 01:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of our article is biased in such a way as to misrepresent the facts and to indicate a certain conclusion when in fact there is no evidence one way or the other
The article is worded how our sources word these things. I completely disagree with your framing of these facts, and agree with our highest quality sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you say the article misrepresents facts, you need to give reliable sources which support that. Otherwise you are just some random person on the internet who prefers their own worldview to the real world. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: I think you should replace the "example text" (!xt) template by the "talk quote" (tq) template to make it clear by the different color that those are real quotes, and to generate a distance to the fictional text by ICPH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now we are getting into Wikipedia-truth versus actual truth again. You've given some excellent arguments in favor of Z from a standpoint of Wikipedia-truth. But the definition of "conspiracy theory" is about actual truth, and that's where LL shines. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck does that even mean? Pursuit of The Truth™ is just a recipe for POV. To cut to the chase, we shall simply follow the WP:BESTSOURCES. They already tell us the "theory" is becoming increasingly conspiracist, as we relay. When good new sources come along, those can be reflected too. Simple. Bon courage (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Bon courage. When we talk about the article, we follow WP:PAGs for content: WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS (where applicable). There have been multiple efforts to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (this discussion seemingly leading towards another tiring example), and when people can't drop that WP:STICK it tends to lead to bans.
If we're 'just asking questions' about what really happened in China that the WP:CABAL doesn't want people to know about, then refer to WP:NOTAFORUM instead. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this entire thread took off from Shib asking me "At what point would you accept that the lab leak is a conspiracy theory?" Notice the second person singular in there. Does answering that question constitute swinging a stick? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately we are responsible to our sources, not to our opinions. But I'd add that you didn't actually answer that question. You answered a different question I didn't ask: "What would you accept to show the lab leak is incorrect?" Two different things. Conspiracy theories don't have to be wrong to be conspiracy theories. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've answered it for me. Per the definition you quote above, for something to be a conspiracy theory, other explanations have to be "more probable". The discovery of a natural ancestor of COVID-19, infecting an animal host in the wild, would certainly get us there. We might also get there if the CCP were to suddenly release the 2019 Wuhan blood samples they wouldn't give to the WHO, make public that database they took offline on Sept. 12, 2019, and take further actions to release information about the origins of the pandemic. Just to be clear, I'm not insisting that others think about this the way I do. But, having been asked how I see it, I do attempt to answer. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: If a theory is true, then by the definition you quoted, it's not a conspiracy theory. Note, from your definition, the key phrase—"when other explanations are more probable". If a theory is true, then by definition no other explanation is more probable. As to the article itself, the claim that "The hypothesis is not supported by any evidence" is clearly false and misleading, and should be removed. There is consensus, both here on the talk page and in reliable sources, that circumstantial evidence lends credence to the lab leak theory, and it's also directly contradicted by later claims in the lead such as "a minority of scientists regard both a lab leak and natural origin as equally valid." Stonkaments (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senate committee minority report

Senate report just confirmed lab leak theory is most likely (DUH) and that you guys have been spreading propaganda. They just told you what I told you in February here which was then scrubbed by the user Bon Courage here.

From the Senate report's intro:

"While precedent of previous outbreaks of human infections from contact with animals favors the hypothesis that a natural zoonotic spillover is responsible for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 that resulted in the COVID-19 pandemic was most likely the result of a research-related incident."

The evidence is well outlined in the section "Basis for Assessment that Research-Related Incident is More Likely Origin of SARS-CoV-2"

And as I mentioned here, evidence is completely missing for a natural origin. From the Senate report:

"However, nearly three years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, critical evidence that would prove that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and resulting COVID-19 pandemic was caused by a natural zoonotic spillover is missing.”

“Such gaps include the failure to identify the original host reservoir, the failure to identify a candidate intermediate host species, and the lack of serological or epidemiological evidence showing transmission from animals to humans, among others outlined in this report,” the report states.

As a result of these evidentiary gaps, it is hard to treat the natural zoonotic spillover theory as the presumptive origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.--2600:1700:B020:1490:A560:9473:63CB:4FC4 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "Senate" with "Minority Oversight Staff", aka this is partisan "propaganda" rather than a reliable source. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2022

(UTC)

The "minority" mentioned in the report refers to 50% of the Senate and the new evidence they've come up with (I haven't read the whole thing) is obviously relevant to the topic of this article. In any case, ProPublica is a reliable source and their report is worth your time. - Palpable (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
dude, stop. It's not a scientific consensus, it's not even published by "the senate". TAPwiki (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. It's being reported by reputable secondary sources all over the place. Here's one from the UK: [8]. It needs mentioning in this article. 31.52.162.226 (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Telegraph is not considered very reliable for this kind of content (politics). — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP says The Telegraph is generally reliable X-Editor (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors believe it is biased or opinionated when it comes to politics. I believe, by convention, political references are typically attributed unless they can be bolstered by higher quality sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whacky US politicians curl some conspiracist turd out. Lab leak stans might be getting a hard on over it, but Wikipedia will prefer to wait for respectable sources. Bon courage (talk)
  • Here is a very thorough write-up of the Senate report by Vanity Fair, a respectable and reliable source. This looks very interesting. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is fascinating that the Senate Republic Minority office can commission a report based on CIA documents and conclude the lab leak is "more likely than not", but the CIA itself determined the opposite in its own review. Fascinating. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the Vanity Fair/Propublica piece that Mr E posted, the report "relied only on publicly available material". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see, Though some members of the Senate team reviewed a small number of classified documents, the interim report relied only on publicly available material. So what's clear is that the CIA actually had access to more documents than the Senate team.
    Honestly, I had a look at the cables themselves, and the evidence is pretty weak. Basically random party officials talking to each other about being scared of the BL4 lab's viruses. I think people in labs I've been a part of talk that way all the time, it doesn't amount to a "biosecurity breach." No actual breach or accident of any kind is described or referenced. They just make vague references to being afraid of the viruses and how dangerous they are. Not even artificial viruses by the way, just viruses in general. I'm afraid of Hantaviruses and how they can make your lungs into blood-filled rags, but it doesn't mean it leaked out of my lab.
    Another thing that bothers me about this article is that it cites a lot of anonymous source "experts" the journalist talked to. On wikipedia we tend to look unfavorably at reports which aren't willing to cite their sources or their credentials when it comes to technical questions. That's a big WP:REDFLAG when they're departing from scientific consensus. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what we have is enough sourcing to say something like "In October 2022, The senate minority office of foreign affairs released a report which said the pandemic was "more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident"." I would say anything else is UNDUE at this point. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you do that, be sure to mention the country. "The senate" could also be the Senate of the Philippines, the Senate of Berlin or any other random senate equally "competent" on scientific matters. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thie[9] source makes it clear this is a GOP stunt, with some reaction from an actual relevant scientist. Bon courage (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to rely heavily on a scientist’s opinion who is featured prominently in the Senate minority report. I’m not sure why more weight or credence should be given to his account than to Vanity Fair and ProPublica. I don’t see any sourcing to justify calling it a “GOP stunt.” Mr Ernie (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What virologists say about virology is most relevant. Wikipedia isn't going to give credence to a silly political stunt or use primary investigations in lifestyle magazines when we have sourcing the appropriate (scientific) realm. Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn’t solely about virology. There are a lot of factors the sources examine. Calling this a silly political stunt and denigrating reliable sources here isn’t productive. The report has achieved enough notability for mention, regardless if it is true or not. If you would like to have Vanity Fair or ProPublica (which has won 6 Pulitzer Prizes) classified as lifestyle magazines you’ll need to do that at the reliable sources noticeboard. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, and we do mention it. Bon Courage already put in a mention about it in the article. So I would describe your reply here as a bit outdated and inflammatory. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I updated the content, as RS don’t draw a connection to the election. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    “Conspiracist turd,” “lab leak stans” getting a “hard on,” “GOP stunt,” “silly political stunt,” and “lifestyle magazines” seem a bit inflammatory to me, but we each perceive things differently. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanity Fair is a monthly tabloid magazine of popular culture, fashion, and current affairs published by Condé Nast. My language may be a bit fruity, but is unlikely to inflame anyone except maybe lableak stans, who aren't here (I hope). Anyway - you know my view. Bon courage (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Their investigation was run together with ProPublica, which is a serious investigative journalist organization. Each website, and I think both are linked in this section, published the same story. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, which is why it is all the more surprising that their interpretation is not shared by other serious news organizations (e.g. Science [10]) or by (non-anonymous) experts on these topics (e.g. the guy who literally designed the figures the report re-used incorrectly [11]). It is sad that the proof here boils down to some random chinese political official saying to another random political official in November 2019: "once you have opened the stored test tubes, it is just as if having opened Pandora’s Box" That's literally it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you thank you @Hob Gadling, I am, as usual, a bit US-myopic. I really like @Bon courage's version and support it as the most NPOV version we have proposed so far. Includes the relevant details with minimal spin. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, whatever you guys say, you anonymous wikipedians are the experts after all, right? Who cares about what credible sources say, right? lol --2600:1700:B020:1490:9C0F:6F4E:76A3:F567 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence claim is false

While two of the sources provided say there is no evidence, with one saying that is no solid evidence (which is a bit different), these sources are rendered outdated by the recent interim report, which provides circumstantial evidence in favour of a lab leak. Maybe the report is partisan, but it would still qualify as evidence in favour of the lab leak, rendering the second sentence incorrect. The second sentence also contradicts a later sentence in the lede that says "a minority of scientists regard both a lab leak and natural origin as equally valid" suggesting there is evidence in favour of the lab leak. While I was wrong that the sources don't back up the claim provided in the sentence, the sentence's claim is still very questionable. @Bakkster Man@Palpable@Shibbolethink@TAPwiki@Bon courage@Mr Ernie@Firefangledfeathers@Hob Gadling@Sennalen@Adoring nanny@Insertcleverphrasehere@Stonkaments X-Editor (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruttel et al. may revolutionize the article or it may not. It will be months yet before there are adequate secordary sources to evaluate. In the meantime, some epistemic humility is called for. Sennalen (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "intermin report" is not reliable for anything and in any case WP:SYNTHESIS is prohibited. We need to be clear about the fringe nature of this topic by being up-front up the zero evidence, to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "fringe nature" is a pov you are pushing in direct contradiction to the best sources. The origin of covid 19 is an unsettled question being pursued as legitimate scientific inquiry, alongside the highest levels of national and international government. Sennalen (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "fringe nature" is a pov you are pushing in direct contradiction to the best sources. Explicitly not true. Our best sources demonstrate the theory lacks any direct supporting evidence (e.g. Science-based medicine, Hakim, Snopes, Holmes et al, Maxmen). The Government also is investigating UFOs (and it investigated JFK), it does not make these topics any less FRINGE. What makes them FRINGE is how they differ from the view accepted by the majority of the expert community. Regardless of what politicians or journalists think about it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WHO, the Lancet, the US Senate and intelligence community, ProPublica: all casually banished to the fringe by the definitive reliability of David Gorski. - Palpable (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the US Senate - do you mean the minority staff of one committee of the senate? As dismissed by multiple experts with PhDs? Including some who actually believe the lab leak theory is plausible?
  • intelligence community - Do you mean only the FBI in contrast with the CIA and National Intelligence Council?
  • the Lancet - Do you mean one person (Jeffrey Sachs) who is a chair of an independent commission and a non-expert (economist) who also thinks the US is responsible for sabotaging the nordstream pipeline and alleges a vast conspiracy of US biotech as responsible for bioengineering SARS-CoV-2?
  • David Gorski - Do you mean the guy who is a recognized expert on issues of conspiracy theories and misinformation, having published numerous articles and been interviewed numerous times by trusted media sources as an expert on these things? And as backed up by multiple peer-reviewed secondary review articles published in topic-relevant journals?
Because if so, then yes. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is a much longer list of people who consider the lab-leak theory plausible which you, yet again, confuse with people who consider it true. The same strawman argument every time.
Have other editors actually read Gorski's rantings? For a supposedly reliable source it's rather dense with mud-slinging and retweets. But I guess what it lacks in coherence it makes up for in "neutrality". - Palpable (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Common mistake that "neutrality" is what we look for in our sources. It isn't. We look for editorial oversight, fact-checking, independence from the subject, and whether other reliable sources consider it trustworthy. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the first two sentences of this article contradict traditional reliable sources, in wikivoice, citing an aggressively opinionated cancer surgeon who publishes on a glorified blog. - Palpable (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, WP:SBM is not a "glorified blog". Fringers hate it, but it's a reliable source for reality - and especially useful for pseudoscience/conspiracist topics like this one. Bon courage (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The majority viewpoint of the expert community is that zoonosis is not proven, a lab leak is not disproven, and both posibilities are worthy of continued study. Sennalen (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying a theory "has no evidence" is not incompatible with it not being disproven, or it being worthy of continued study. These concepts are not mutually exclusive. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: The Government also is investigating UFOs (and it investigated JFK), it does not make these topics any less FRINGE. UAPs (née UFOs) are probably a good example. By definition, they're unidentified due to a lack of definitive evidence. The fringe belief is not that we can't identify everything we see in the sky, it's that they're probably aliens. Just like the new UAP program, there's a possibility left open for alien craft as an explanation, but it's certainly not expected to be more likely than the other explanations. At least, apart from fringe believers, many of whom think even easily debunked video artifacts or CGI are aliens and are thus primed to read their preferred explanation into every example.
That last point is probably the most relevant here; some people are already convinced it probably came from WIV, and so their evaluation of the relative probability leans that direction for every piece of data. Not because the evidence is convincing to the mainstream, but because they're already looking to fit it into their existing view. In a similar way to how UAP videos aren't evidence for aliens, the COVID studies to date are not necessarily evidence of a lab leak. And that 'necessarily' is probably the key question for whether "no evidence" is an accurate phrase to use. Is a UAP video that hasn't yet had a clear explanation necessarily evidence of aliens existing and being the cause of the UAP? No. Is an uncommon codon sequence or lab proposals or the timing of research data necessarily evidence of a lab origin? Also no. Clarifying that difference between circumstantial evidence ("if aliens exist, then this video would be best explained by that origin") and concrete evidence ("we recovered an alien craft with aliens piloting it") is worth doing, where we haven't already. See below for my attempt to directly address this. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'definitive' evidence, but our own article cites many examples of circumstantial evidence. That sentence does not represent the body of the article and should be changed. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 22:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, WP:TINFOILHAT is non-negotiable core policy and requires us to be up-front and prominent about fringe ideas and what relevant scientists think. We say there's no evidence in the body too. "Circumstantial evidence" is just a fancy pants word for stories. There's "circumstantial evidence" for all kinds of whacky-dack conspiracy theories. Bon courage (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see four uses of the phrase "no evidence" (or similar), and think we should evaluate each in context.
  • Lead: The theory is not supported by any evidence. I see reason to be more clear on this. The phrase "not supported by any evidence" can be reasonably interpreted as lacking even circumstantial evidence. I'd be in favor of describing this as not being supported by "any direct evidence", as the rest of the lead describes the circumstantial evidence, and later sections further describe where evidence is lacking.
  • Lab leak theories lead paragraph: There is no evidence that any laboratory had samples of SARS-CoV-2, or a plausible ancestor virus, prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This seems the least controversial to keep as is. It is clear what evidence the paragraph refers to.
  • WHO assessment body: Other scientists found the report convincing, and said there was no evidence of a laboratory origin for the virus. The cited source for this sentence doesn't seem to be strong enough, but Holmes et al which does directly make the claim and I have cited it here.
  • Furin cleavage site body in the DEFUSE paragraph: There is no evidence that any of the proposed experiments were ever carried out. Similar to the second one, this seems clear enough about what we're lacking evidence of: a particular set of proposed studies having been funded and carried out.
Hopefully this helps focus on the specific uses, instead of broad strokes, and makes it easier to get consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support "any direct evidence for the Lead. I think that's a fair caveat.
  • Agree with your second bullet 100%. It's what's in our sources.
  • Support adding Holmes. Yeah we needed it, which directly addresses the report's findings.
  • Support keeping the furin cleavage paragraph as is.
Great work as always, Bakkster Man! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not go with the least controversial version in the lede? Something like "There is no evidence SARS-CoV2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic" ... Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fine too, personally. I reread the first paragraph of the lead and i think that would flow well. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit hesitant that it might be too specific, but on second thought it does cut clearly to the core of the question. It may be too wordy relative to 'direct evidence', but I think it's a good option to have as we get more feedback from participants here. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's bad, and the subsequent wikilinking of "direct evidence" shows why. Probably the solution is to go closer to the source. Bon courage (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm alright with the current version. "no evidence SARS-CoV2 existed.." It's factual and unbiased. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Fair issues

There now seem to be credible doubts raised[12] that the Vanity Fair piece is incompetent to the point of being misleading. I think it should be removed. Bon courage (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think we should keep our mention of it, but appropriately address it. The issue isn't that it is UNDUE, it's that it's just bad journalism. We should describe it as such. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the journos view is presented as one on a menu of options, when it seems the journos were just wrong. Bon courage (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your interpretation, I think that's absolutely going to be the thing that floats to the top here. But we should probably wait for RSes to pick up on it more. Lab leak Twitter is aflame right now, just need to wait for the news orgs usual suspects to pick up on it. I suspect we'll get a scathing article from NYT in a day or two — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage If you want to discount a source based on random twitter commentators... well... WP:RSN is the best place to have that conversation, and you are much less likely to have people on either side of the argument simply arguing for their 'side'. I don't think we can have a fruitful and constructive conversation here. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is credible journalists are going "huh"? And nobody sane is defending the piece. As a sniff test, it's common for fringe topics when some out-of-the-way claims is made to look at social media to gauge what sensible people are saying. As it happens this is snowballing and it turns out this propublica piece is indeed the famed "conspiracist turd" as suspected. I think a few editors here could usefully reflect on this. Bon courage (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that those who might disagree with you are not sane is rude and uncollegial. I'm not offended, don't worry, but I hope you realize how you're coming across here. 2600:1012:B017:C2FA:3D71:2EDA:C201:15B1 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bon courage is not saying that anyone who believes in the lab leak is not sane, he's saying "nobody sane on social media is defending this piece." See, for example: Richard Ebright, who is a pretty staunch defender of the lab leak idea, is saying this piece is nothing new, overhyped bad journalism. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We report what reliable sources say...Your opinions, original research, and twitter links are irrelevant." 2600:1012:B065:16EF:53:6B7F:9ED3:76E2 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're irrelevant to what we report, but to how we assess sources, sometimes quite important. Reputable twitter peeps are saying this Vanity Source stuff is shite. But as others have said we can wait for the demolition jobs to come in from MSM and then go to town. There's no hurry. Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Same poster as above)...From what I understand, dates may have been mistranslated (so some things happened in August vs. November). I would agree that inaccuracies like that would call into doubt the source. However, wasn't an earlier timeline part of the theory? Wasn't there satellite imagery that showed crowded hospitals in the summer? I'm not trying to argue this either way, but I do think it's possible that the "rebuttal" will involve an update rather than a retraction. I would agree that it is "shite" if it has such errors, especially since it was written over the course of many months. But it's possible that after these errors are fixed, the evidence is still consistent with a lab leak. And I would like to note that many of your "reputable" Twitter voices likely have a conflict of interest and incentive to downplay the lab leak, because biosafety concerns could doom their research funding. There's that Sinclair quote about the difficulty with believing something when their paycheck depends on it. Furthermore, virologists aren't experts in human/criminal behavior, which the ProPublica investigation relies on. I'd like to note that it was only the FBI that leaned toward a lab leak, and unlike, say the NSA, which is full of math nerds, that human angle really is the FBI's area of expertise. Anyway, I'd support removing it because there will definitely be a better follow-up, but I don't agree that it will necessarily involve a full retraction. 2600:1012:B050:2DCD:91BA:3A6B:8081:44B1 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this is what happened.[13] On this basis I think we might have to revisit whether "propublica" or Vanity Fair are reliable sources for anything (outside hair care products, etc.). Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite concerning. ProPublica is one of the most reputable news orgs out there, with tons of awards, a solid track record, and a far better funding model and less pressure towards sensationalism than practically any other news outlet in existence. If even they can make such basic 'journalism 101' mistakes, then all media can. My overall opinion on media reliability these days, is that we should treat everything as if it were of "no consensus regarding reliability" (yellow in WP:RSP) unless a story has been corroborated independently by multiple outlets. Far too many examples of "generally reliable" outlets also publishing junk which doesn't meet encyclopedic inclusion standards. I feel WP:RSBREAKING actually backs me up on this, but almost no one seems to know about it (or care to apply it). DFlhb (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add: elevating WP:PRIMARYNEWS to policy would solve this entirely. News reports are primary sources on their own claims, whether or not they include any analysis. That's both common-sensical, and it's absolutely the scholarly consensus, which Wikipedia has departed from — to its own detriment. DFlhb (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of what happened here with ProPublica. When it's "co-investigated" pieces like this, all bets are off. The journalist in question here, Jeff Kao, is not typically involved in science journalism or lab leak sphere stuff. He's more involved with investigations into the Uyghur crisis, a legitimate problem that the Chinese government is keen on hiding. It's not that hard to see why he might make mistakes here, as a "data" journalist, out of his element. This reflects badly on ProPublica, but I don't buy "If even they can make such basic 'journalism 101' mistakes, then all media can". The circumstances are very specific, here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes much over-used as the concept of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is, this would seem to be a case where a fledging org has burned whatever reputation it has accrued, very quickly. Bon courage (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to drag this off-topic and will keep my reply brief, but a journalist who makes basic Chinese-language mistakes regarding Covid should stay far away from the Uyghur crisis, which requires IMO even greater Mandarin skills. Yikes. I'll note that I don't think your comment addresses the substance of mine, which is based on the need for corroboration; I feel that argument is directly relevant to this article. ProPublica was a minor point non-essential to my argument. DFlhb (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the mistranslation the work of one Toy Reid (formerly Marco Rubio's staff) in the GOP document, which has been credulously swallowed by the news orgs? Thus what this is, is a complicit laundering of political messaging. And then we get Wikipedia editors instantly demanding it's included because it proves LL. If only WP:NOTNEWS existed, aye. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE issue in lead

User:Bon_courage claims the following sentence is due as the last sentence of the lead:

The new evidence led a co-author of the two papers, Edward C. Holmes, to declare in The Conversation that "the COVID lab leak theory is dead".

The zoonotic hypothesis is now by far the strongest, but this sentence plainly violates WP:DUE, especially for the lead (but also in the body).

Here's coverage of the paper in repuable outlets, and its implications for the lab leak theory:

In reaction to the papers, [scientists] say the data tips the scales toward wildlife sold at the market. — NPR
The studies don't exclude other hypotheses entirely, but they absolutely are pushing it toward an animal origin. — Jeremy Kamil, virologist quoted by NPR
“I think what they’re arguing could be true, but I don’t think the quality of the data is sufficient to say that any of these scenarios are true with confidence. — Jesse Bloom, virologist quoted by NYT
They are interesting studies, but I don’t think they close the case on what happened with the origins of the virus. — Jesse Bloom again, in Science.org
The virus would have arrived in a person, who then infected other people. And the neighborhood of the market, or the market itself, became a kind of a sustained superspreader event. — David Relman, Stanford microbiologist quoted by NYT
I have been brought closer to the zoonosis side with these preprints — Flo Débarre, evolutionary biologist quoted by Science.org
[These studies] will be taken as a blow [to the lab-leak hypothesis]. They substantially move the needle on the origins in the direction of the market. — William Hanage, evolutionary biologist quoted by Science.org

The consensus is clearly that the lab leak theory is now very unlikely, not that it is dead. I recommend we quote Hanage instead.

I also think the study's main arguments should be (very briefly) mentioned in the lead, not just its findings; the arguments were widely covered and are very much due. DFlhb (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes is better: more senior, a virologist, and somebody who has moved from one "side" of the debate to the other. The catchy wording also makes the lede a bit more interesting, encouraging our readers to maybe read on. Because we have no WP:MEDRS for the paper itself I'd oppose trying to comment on the arguments, especially in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key problem is that there isn't scientific consensus, and putting his quote in the lead breaks WP:NPOV.
"somebody who has moved from one "side" of the debate to the other"
It seems like that "conversion" happened in February 2020, over the course of days (or weeks at the outmost). He's been a proponent of the zoonotic origin theory since March 2020, and received criticism for discounting the lab leak theory early on.
If you want someone who actually moved from one side to the other, Flo Débarre (cited in Science.org) is a good example, though she unfortunately doesn't give a very usable quote. Hanage does, pointing that the studies "move the needle" and are a "blow". I don't think "catchy" wording that distorts the consensus on a sensitive subject is appropriate, and disagree that it would encourage people to read on. DFlhb (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole problem (which has bedevilled this topic) is that as always lay-press publications are hopeless when it comes to scientific topics, and love to amplify stories that are likely to garner clicks. This article only exists because of the clamour of (in my view mostly bad) Wikipedia editors who are similarly out of their depth, but oh-so-vocal. All that can be done now it to try and keep some order by insisting on good sources. And lifestyle magazine for virology content is not a good idea. Basically the lab leak stuff is a conspiracy theory only supported by grifters and loons. Scientists at most would allow it's not rulable-outable. If Wikipedia was a decent encyclopedia that's would it would say too - preferably in just a few paragraphs. Bon courage (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. My edit also has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the lab leak theory; I'll gently remind you that this talk page is for discussion of the article content, not the merits of the lab leak theory.
Above, I quote virologists, not "Wikipedia editors who are [...] out of their depth" or any "lifestyle magazine". Experts decide what the consensus is, not you or me, and including this sentence in the lead is both WP:UNDUE, and inappropriate per WP:PRIMARY. You have not yet offered counterarguments related to these policies to justify your revert; feel free to do so. DFlhb (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DFlhb: My comments about the article content as a whole, its genesis, and its sourcing were a general response to the comment[15] I was replying to (which - wtf - has now disappeared), not to you. But as for Holmes - as you say "Experts decide what the consensus is". I'd rather we quote a senior virologist than a more junior epidemiologist. Let's see what others think. Bon courage (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's inappropriate to use that quotation from one of the study's authors. I would replace it with the Kamil quote, but am not opposed to the Hanage quote. Poppa shark (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFTOPIC; this section is specifically about the last sentence of the lead. — DFlhb (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense? No. Irrelevant? Yes, which is why I deleted it. But I'll just say that I am no stranger to viewing pieces put out by ProPublica as absolute contrived garbage that attempts to confirm a narrative. I thought that my opinion is irrelevant though, as Wikipedia reflects what is published in the broad and mainstream written canon, and my views (and yours) weren't invited to that party. 2600:1012:B017:C2FA:3D71:2EDA:C201:15B1 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that is normal scientific discourse propublica, VF, etc. aren't cited. Nor in scientific articles on Wikipedia normally. This article is odd in that respect. Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Science piece uses data given out by the Chinese. I don't trust China on this. I could generate a dataset that pinpoints the wet market with an inverse bivariate normal function and a random number generator. The guy calling the lab leak "dead" has a paycheck that is threatened by virology research reform. Furthermore, he isn't an expert in criminal psychology like the FBI would be, as I noted above, so he is absolutely out of his element in some ways. I object to your characterization of people who favor or are simply open to the lab leak theory. 2600:1012:B017:C2FA:3D71:2EDA:C201:15B1 (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
has a paycheck that is threatened by virology research reform Classic conspiracist reasoning. Climate change denying loons say exactly the same thing about the scientists they want to discredit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is actual scientific debate over the merits of gain-of-function research. See [16] which was put out amid the Obama GOF "crackdown". I think that is a poor analogy. Holmes's paycheck is relevant. Furthermore, unlike with climate denial re: the fossil fuel industry, the "big money" is on the virologists' side, as it would involve the question of China paying a 14-figure sum in reparations. 2600:1012:B017:C2FA:3D71:2EDA:C201:15B1 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: whether this is DUE, here's coverage of this exact quotation and position of Holmes, in various major news outlets: Yahoo News  · Hindustan Times  · RACGP  · Australian Broadcasting Corporation  · Unherd Opinion piece responding directly to the quote — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are mostly the same news story, being republished across websites; IIRC Wikipedia policy explicitly treats that as a single source, though I don't remember in which policy, but it seems like common sense. Besides, WP:DUEness for the lead has nothing to do with how many sources cover a single quote, but with whether it's representative of scientific consensus, so I find this argument puzzling. I assume you're arguing that it's due for the article body, and not arguing it's due in the lead? I agree with the quote going in the article body. DFlhb (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't we moved beyond the due question, since the OP want to include some guy's words just not Holmes's? Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm the OP, but yes. To clarity my thesis: the quote is due, but undue in the lead due to WP:NPOV (and suboptimal due to WP:PRIMARY). My now-struckthrough "but also in the body" comment was confusing; I was saying it would be undue if put in the body on its own, without any other quotes; that's unnecessarily confusing since obviously we do include other quotes; disregard that, I've struck it through. DFlhb (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that depth of coverage speaks more to notability (it should be cited in the article) than due weight (where and how we cite it), at least as far as an author quote. I think there's a valid concern that the peer reviewed studies, plus the author quote, could be undue double dipping in the lead. That said, some of this also depends on how tight the lead is already, as undue weight depends on comparison to the weight given to other aspects. Looking at our lead, it's possible we're already bloated, and trimming the quote would be best accompanied by trimming another third to half of the text of the lead to avoid touching too many details.
On the other hand, I think only discussing these papers in depth in the final section, sandwiched between the political wrangling of WHO-China and US Republicans, is unduly minimizing it. I suggest removing the quote from the lead, but bringing the body text up from Political and media attention - Developments in 2022 section at the bottom to either the Background - Zoonosis section up top (easiest to implement) or splitting out a Origin science section for this and other peer-reviewed work since the start of the pandemic either before or after the description of the actual leak scenarios (more effort, but perhaps better long-term). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the lead, I'm not seeing much that is cruft; it gives a solid overview of the lab leak theory and its evolution. I agree with your second paragraph, though I don't think it fits in "background" very well, since it's a recent discovery. I've boldly moved it to a top-level section, above "Political and media attention" since scientific discoveries plainly don't fit there, pending further discussion on where to best put it. However, I've kept the senate report under "Political and media attention", where it belongs. DFlhb (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Err, it doesn't look like he actually said that in the article text, that is the title of the article. Did he say this elsewhere? probably should make sure before including as a quote. Anyway in the spirit of making the best of a bad article, there is a missed opportunity in going for the quote rather than looking at the content. There is an explanation of papers for a general audience (which the WP article lacks) and "The lab leak theory stands as an unfalsifiable allegation" should suggest more content per WP:FRINGE (tho if i recall Rasmussen has somewhere been more clear and direct.) fiveby(zero) 17:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a very good point I had not considered, given WP:HEADLINE. Would be happy to see a different quote there. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But "this lays to rest the idea that the virus escaped from a laboratory" is pretty damn close anyway, so don't take me wrong, not a big deal. I just don't like quoting. fiveby(zero) 23:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; it's unlikely he picked the headline himself, and attributing it to him would be incorrect. And Rasmussen's comments were about debating with randos on Twitter; not the brightest idea, and not due here. For Holmes, I doubt "unfalsifiable" would represent the consensus; that, too, seems to have been targeted at political proponents, who keep shifting the goal posts, not scientific ones. The theory is pretty clearly falsifiable. I do support detailing his arguments (as noted above), based on Holmes's article and the NYT explainer. DFlhb (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not sure where the "dead" stuff came from. As originally added (by me)[17] it weren't there. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May have been me, I cannot recall. But I see the flaw in the headline, of course. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is DUE enough to belongs in the lede. It is sensationalist headline making, and doesn't represent the consensus, no matter how you cherry pick it. The lede is quite clear without it where the evidence currently lands on both sides. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 20:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've moved beyond that. Everybody seems to think something is due. But what? Bon courage (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hanage is a very highly-cited scientist; many of his most-cited papers were about Covid; and he gives us a quote that closely reflects the wider consensus. Easy choice IMO. I'd also be wary of "picking and choosing our experts" based on "seniority" (which is meaningless). Not letting a primary source have "the last word" is an added bonus. DFlhb (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody's view is primary for their view. I disagree about Hanage. Maybe you could think about devising the wording for a RfC if you want to pursue this. Bon courage (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone except the studies' authors is secondary for the study's significance; that's a straightforward reading of WP:SECONDARY. I'll let the discussion follow its course; zero need for an RfC at the moment. DFlhb (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but it's not being asserted as an assessment of the study's significance, it being reported as somebody's view. Everybody's view is primary for their view; but all these guys' views are reported in secondary sources, so we're avoiding the WP:ARSEHOLES problem, We won't be asserting any view about the paper unless it appears in something super strong like a WP:MEDRS review. Bon courage (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added new papers to the template

I remind you about the sticky template above, where a few papers have been added. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your tireless work on this, as always! You are of course correct, we should have added them ourselves — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New source

Some good material in here, which will be useful for better contextualizing the fringe/pseudoscientific lab leak claims, I think. Bon courage (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source is clearly marked as an opinion piece, yet you have transcribed it into wikivoice four times! Revert or add inline attribution. - Palpable (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASSERT when something's obvious. Bon courage (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to attribute the consensus view, that much is clear. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying there is no controversy around this topic, so WP:RS doesn't apply? - Palpable (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What particular assertions do you judge "controversial"? You'd need of course to produce good sources showing this, not just your own POV. Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the burden is yours.
The source is clearly marked as an opinion piece, yet you have transcribed it into wikivoice four times.
Again, you should revert or add inline atttribution. You are well aware of WP:PRIMARY. - Palpable (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to have missed the previous responses. You don't seem to understand. WP:YESPOV is policy. Bon courage (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, you saw that the source is labeled OPINION? - Palpable (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources which show that the view in the piece is NOT the consensus?
We have many multiple sources in the article already which show that it is, hence why BURDEN applies to you as the person who wants to change that. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an odd interpretation. WP:BURDEN says the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
Bon Courage added four different claims to the article, in wikivoice, sourced to a piece which is clearly marked as opinion. It sounds like this was intentional rather than a good faith mistake. - Palpable (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you disagree on interpretation of the consensus view. That's fine. But it does not mean the article will depict your personal view instead. As I said, there are multiple other sources which support the statements:
Nplusone, Andrew Liu. Spring 2022. "Lab-Leak Theory and the “Asiatic” Form":
The lab-leak theory came to legitimacy by a circuitous path. It was first auditioned by Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo shortly after lockdown started, but journalists were quick to distance themselves from its overtones of crude Trumpian racism...the New York Times reported triumphantly that..."Asians have trusted their governments to do the right thing, and they were willing to put the needs of the community over their individual freedoms.” Such examples attempt to repudiate racist stereotypes of Asian disloyalty and backwardness by foregrounding Asian modernity and collectivity backwardness by foregrounding Asian modernity and collectivity.
Columbia Journalism Review. Jon Allsop. June 2021. "The lab-leak mess":
But virologists are generally more credible than Trump, who does lie systematically, and did seek to blame China for the pandemic to distract from his own dismal performance; various actors, meanwhile, have weaponized the lab-leak theory as part of a racist agenda that has had very real consequences. A given theory can be a conspiracy and racist and, at root, true, just as a given theory can be scientifically grounded and not racist and, at root, false; who is propounding it, and why, and based on what, matters. The mistake many in the media made was to cast the lab-leak theory as inherently conspiratorial and racist, and misunderstand the relation between those properties and the immutable underlying facts. It would also be wrong, now, to assume that the lab-leak theory is inherently clean of those taints.
Hardy, Lisa J. (17 September 2020). "Connection, Contagion, and COVID-19". Medical Anthropology. 39 (8): 655–659. doi:10.1080/01459740.2020.1814773. eISSN 1545-5882. ISSN 0145-9740. PMID 32941085.:
People question if scientists and/or political leaders created the virus in a lab and/or intentionally leaked it into the general public. Blame in conspiracies of COVID-19 is distributed differently across beliefs. Some question actions of the Chinese government and/or mention relationships with, for instance, people from Wuhan, China, reflecting xenophobic ideologies.
Beijing Review. Josef Gregory Mahoney. August 2021. "The unscientific surmise that COVID-19 was spread by Wuhan lab is racist"
The "lab leak lie" is racist. To be clear, the unscientific surmise that COVID-19 was spread intentionally or unintentionally by a Chinese government laboratory in Wuhan is racist. From the beginning, this lie was an expression of dog-whistle politics, one that has exploited longstanding racial stereotypes, and that has in turn deepened anti-Asian racism in many countries around the world.
Scientific American. Stephan Lewandowsky, Peter Jacobs, Stuart Neil. March 2022. "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth"
Motivated reasoning based on blaming an “other” is a powerful force against scientific evidence. Some politicians—most notably former President Donald Trump and his entourage—still push the lab-leak hypothesis and blame China in broad daylight...Ironically the xenophobic instrumentalization of the lab-leak hypothesis may have made it harder for reasonable scientific voices to suggest and explore theories because so much time and effort has gone into containing the fallout from conspiratorial rhetoric.
How do you suggest we depict this view in the article? And what evidence do you have that it is not the consensus, given these sources? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article states the lab leak is a conspiracy theory

However the FBI considers most likely the virus came from a lab leak. The report "An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic" Interim Report written by "The Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor, Pensions" October 2022 says that the lab theory should be considered currently as the one with more credibility currently. However this Wikipedia article directly states that "lab leak is a conspiracy theory". Even the FBI considers the lab leak to be the most valid theory at the moment. Therefore this Wikipedia article as it currently stands is very biased and is been extremely disrespectful. Obviously, stating that the lab leak was considered a conspiracy theory in the past may be correct, but to call it that directly is wrong, and exactly what Wikipedia does not stand for. 80.29.196.10 (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not state "the lab leak is a conspiracy theory". Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the phrase "lab leak is a conspiracy theory" nor "is a conspiracy theory" occur in the article. You'll need to provide a direct quote if there is one. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1121950743"