Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes agreed, the Science source is optimal, though the Atlantic source is also quite good. I was able to get a full text version from WP:TWL, available as PDF here: [1] for verification purposes. These quotes from The Atlantic I think are salient:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have to wait for RS to catch up with the evidence[2], sure. As editors though everyone should recognize that spillover can not have happened at the Huanan seafood market in November. Consequently, the Andersen proximal origin paper is revealed to be as much of a just-so story as any lab leak hypothesis. Anyone who thought that was an ironclad case should update their priors and recognize their own motivated reasoning. (Or they can be fringe theorists who move the goalposts.) Sennalen (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources indicating a pre-September spillover? The current prose and sourcing in the COVID-19 pandemic article indicates mid-October to mid-November spillover.[3][4] Bakkster Man (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

BMJ Global Health article isn’t Correspondence. It states it is an Analysis article at the top. Their Analysis articles seem to be similar to a Review article though with some traits of an opinion article. Or were you referring to pre-print article referenced in Atlantic article?

“Analysis

“Analysis papers address topical clinical, scientific, ethical, and policy issues that matter to doctors, patients and health policy makers. These articles present a clearly reasoned argument, are backed by an even-handed look at the evidence, and have a clear key message. Articles that set out hypotheses are not suitable unless they contain a convincing attempt to test them.

…

“”Analysis” is a distinct article type at The BMJ, and differs from other sections such as Research, Education, Editorials, and Personal Views. A great Analysis article makes an argument and supports it with reference to a robust (not cherry picked) evidence base. It has academic heft yet is a journalistic read.

“‘Academic heft' means the argument is evidence-based and supported by data. 'Journalistic read' means the article is really engaging (not dry nor dull; written in clear language and avoiding technical jargon; and pitched to our international audience of doctors of all specialties, academics, and policy makers). Keep in mind that Analysis articles are “long reads” at around 1800-2000 words, so they need to be absolutely great reading to keep readers’ attention, particularly readers that may not be familiar with the topic…

“We generally do not consider:

• Case studies

• Manuscripts containing primary research data (such papers should be submitted as Research)

• Narrative review articles (as a general practice, The BMJ does not accept unsolicited submissions of review articles)

• Articles presenting a new hypothesis

https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-types JustinReilly (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This[5] sums up the whole story of these raccoon dog claims. Sennalen (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most sources in this topic should be considered "biased or opinionated for politics", even the peer-reviewed articles

This seems to be your personal opinion, and does not reflect the consensus described at WP:RSP. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"doesn't prove racoon dogs were infected" sure.

It provides evidence for the conclusion that raccoon dogs were infected. Amidst a growing mountain of experimental and empirical evidence which supports the same. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's time for COVID-19 zoonosis theories. Sennalen (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

In and of itself, this type of evidence would typically be termed “no evidence” or “not evidence,” by mainstream medical authorities. I would say it’s extraordinarily brittle evidence- extremely circumstantial evidence from a very unreliable source- that’s perhaps uninterpretable bc of that latter factor. IMV, it should be mentioned along with context of its weakness as potential evidence. (Frankly the fact this is considered the best evidence yet just goes to show how filmsy the evidence for zoonosis is) JustinReilly (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Marburg

There has been no substantive explanation for reverting this material.

The fact that Marburg virus disease was first documented as a novel disease in the form of a lab leak is long-settled science. This is in no way a fringe or even minority view, so WP:UNDUE does not apply. The source is impeccable. The paragraph is about past lab leaks of novel viruses, so this is patently on-topic. It is possible to raise the objection that there is no strong RS discussing this incident in the context of Covid. This is unfortunate, but sources and common sense do establish that historical examples of lab leaks in general are pertinent.

Holmes makes the claim that there has never been an epidemic caused by a lab leak of a novel virus, and this is demonstrably false. There is no scientific consensus on the difference between an outbreak and an epidemic, and they are sometimes used interchangeably. There's a connotation that outbreaks are smaller, but there is no authoritative threshold. As such, The 1967 outbreak is an example of an epidemic that started from a lab leak.

Holmes' statement is at odds with scientific consensus. It is at best WP:INACCURACY and at worst WP:FRINGE. This week, denial that the 1967 outbreak was a lab leak incident has been particularly circulating among zoonosis theory proponents on Twitter. Holmes' opinion however is notable and should be mentioned to satisfy WP:NPOV. Per WP:FRINGELEVEL and WP:PARITY however, it should be contrasted with the scientific mainstream view, and Wikipedia is not limited to using sources that directly describe the minority view. Sennalen (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I think your comments here make it clear that your intended use of the new source is to make a WP:SYNTHy implied claim that the Holmes source is incorrect. This is problematic because:

• Such synthesis is prohibited by WP:OR.
• There has been no showing that Holmes is at odds with the mainstream view on this. If there were proof of that, I agree FRINGE compliance would make some synth necessary.
• The new source (from 2007) does not call the Marburg outbreak an epidemic. If there were a mainstream view that needed mentioning, this would not be the source to use.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Holmes being at odds with the mainstream is shown by the origins of Marburg virus disease being settled science.
• SYNTH involves combining statements from multiple sources. Regardless of any other argument pro or con, the fact that there is only one source in play makes SYNTH impossible.
• OR involves a claim that is not sourced, which again does not apply.
• Wikipedia:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information and Wikipedia:These are not original research#Conflict between sources elaborate on how handling source conflicts appropriately is not OR.
• Describing the discrepancy, Such as "Holmes' assertion is disproved by..." would be OR without a source to do so, but juxtaposing the claims is not OR or SYNTH.
• Outbreak and epidemic are interchangeable in practice, so it does not require a source to treat them as such in this specific context. The vagueness of the definition only makes it more advisable to attribute Holmes' opinion.

Sennalen (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Mere juxtaposition is not synth, but doing so to make an implied claim absolutely is. If others don't weigh in on this, we could run it by WP:NPOVN. I'm picking this out as the strongest of your claims, but please don't take my silence on the rest as agreement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no implied claim. There is an explicit, sourced claim that an epidemic of novel Marburg virus began in laboratory workers. Sennalen (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This info about Marburg is WP:UNDUE because sources about COVID do not mention it, per WP:RSUW. It's SYNTH because it connects info that no sources are discussing to info that sources are discussing, in a novel way. Overall it appears to be an attempt to discredit Holmes, an established expert, without any actual sources which support the discrediting. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The relevant sentence from WP:NOR is To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The '67 Marburg outbreak was from a veterinary lab, not a virology lab. The proposed source doesn't mention COVID-19 so it isn't relevant to this article. Excluding this content from the article is an easy call. VQuakr (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to where qualifiers on the type of lab come into play? See above on why the source not mentioning Covid is not an obstacle. The section has long contained sources older than 2019 without arousing objection. I believe the wellspring of opposition is here is precisely because of the relevance of Marburg, rather than a lack of relevance. Sennalen (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe the wellspring of opposition is here is precisely because of the relevance of Marburg, rather than a lack of relevance. Mmkay. I find your beliefs unconvincing. This isn't relevant enough to warrant mention. VQuakr (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A leak from any lab is a lab leak, but the initial exposures were veterinary personnel in virology labs. Per various sources below, the primates were to be allocated to a variety of vaccine-related activities including development, manufacturing, and testing. Sennalen (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of sources that refer to the 1967 incident as an epidemic.[6][7][8][9][10][11] Most of these also refer to it interchangeably as an outbreak. It's not a discrete claim that the outbreak was an epidemic, just routine application of a synonym. Sennalen (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Outbreak and epidemic are not synonyms (see: [12][13][14][15]), and it appears your sources are not in-depth discussing the lab outbreak.

In that case, only 30 people were ever actually infected. You'll notice our sources over at 1967 Marburg virus outbreak don't use the term "epidemic", even if your cherry picked sources may in passing. These "drive-by" mentions don't matter as much as in depth ones, such as those referenced at the article and these other more in depth reviews: [16][17][18]. Indeed, these [19][20] make explicit distinctions between outbreaks and epidemics, and call the 1967 incident an outbreak.

There's also significant pushback from the expert community in calling the 1967 event a "lab leak" given that it appears to have occurred from live monkeys which were not experimented on in any way. It was essentially a situation akin to any zoo: [21] (not a very reliable source, but quotes experts) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It quotes experts on both sides of the question, although the Forbes contributor is not shy about their bias. With luck, deeper coverage will follow. Sennalen (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure. We would need a few different RSes to weigh in and connect COVID to this 1967 event in order to mention it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that would be better to have a better source. It is not necessary to have one though, since Holmes and SPS experts establish that the question of whether such an event took place is relevant to the topic. Sennalen (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources you linked don't show any consistent distinction between "outbreak" and "epidemic". Some stress the involvement of widespread secondary infection, but some highlight that transmission is not central to the definition, e.g., "obesity epidemic". The one from the CDC says, Outbreak carries the same definition as epidemic, but is often used for a more limited geographic area.[22] Recent cases in Africa with as few as 4 exposures are called epidemics. Sennalen (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you suggest that not labeling an outbreak with just six secondary cases an epidemic is a case of WP:INACCURACY, but don't apply the same skepticism to sources using the terms interchangeably (in a way that does not match our definition in the linked epidemic article: the rapid spread of disease to a large number of hosts in a given population within a short period of time.).

I might have agreed that the Marburg outbreak was relevant as added context, as the only known lab release which caused a novel illness but without the wide secondary infections that would indicate an epidemic, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your addition given your stated intent to use it to dismiss the Holmes source in a way that's contrary to what the two blue links in the paragraph say on the subject. It's a marginal edit at best, but this motivation makes it an unambiguously bad edit. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit cherrypicked from epidemic, which also says The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines epidemic broadly: "the occurrence of more cases of disease, injury, or other health condition than expected in a given area or among a specific group of persons during a particular period. Usually, the cases are presumed to have a common cause or to be related to one another in some way (see also outbreak)." The terms "epidemic" and "outbreak" have often been used interchangeably. See also the language at epidemic#Types.

I would agree with restoring the matierial with the added qualification it did not lead to widespread secondary infections. (The low transmissability of Marburg virus is a blessing.) My motivations shouldn't factor into it. Sennalen (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

My motivations shouldn't factor into it. I disagree, particularly where the motivations are contrary to WP:PAGs. At most, I'd say you should be convincing someone else of the need to write a sentence, rather than re-adding the content yourself. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Marburg is relevant in a general sense. It could reasonably fit into the following paragraph: Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as AIDS, H1N1, SARS, and the Ebola virus have been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created in or escaped from a laboratory. Each of these is now understood to have a natural origin. The actual lab escape of Marburg has a higher relevance than the incorrect theories of other lab escapes. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ideally we'd have a direct citation making that link, as otherwise it comes across as WP:OR. On a quick Google search, it seems this proposed edit came after a Tweet on the topic in the midst of an outbreak of Marburg in Africa, and it seems to be getting dismissed as an intentional misrepresentation to promote the idea of a COVID lab leak. So with this context, maybe it does fit into the paragraph with the other 'misrepresentations' and described as such. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"An appeal..." in The Lancet, cites [23] for "a natural virus during field collection, transportation from the field to a laboratory,". I think field collection has at times been one of the plausible scenarios that where not yet ruled out, but no evidence for and orders of magnitude less exposure. I hope we do get a good source here to explain when field collection was a possible but unlikely scenario, but it seems like it's moved into the not viable category. Not saying we should cite "An appeal...", just that i very much doubt this was an unconsidered aspect by Holmes et al. fiveby(zero) 18:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, now i'm not reading very carefully: with the exception of Marburg virus citing PMID 32404328, from critical review. Is that the kind of link you're looking for? If you do add content here from that source, you should probably follow up with the rest, that in known leaks there was evidence from contact tracing back to index cases. fiveby(zero) 19:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The full and applicable passage from the critical review is:

However, with the exception of Marburg virus (Ristanovic et al., 2020 � ), all documented laboratory escapes
have been of readily identifiable viruses capable of human infection and associated with sustained work in high titer cultures (Geddes, 2006; Lim et al., 2004; Senior, 2003). The 1977 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic, that most likely originated from a large-scale vaccine challenge trial (Rozo and Gronvall, 2015), is the only documented example of a human epidemic or pandemic resulting from research activity. No epidemic has been caused by the escape of a novel virus, and there is no data to suggest that the WIV—or any other laboratory—was working on SARS-CoV-2, or any virus close enough to be the progenitor, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This critical review and these post-covid cites [24][25], could probably be used to add this (underlined mine):

No epidemic has ever been caused by the leak of a novel virus from a research laboratory.[3] The only incident of a lab-acquired infection leading to an epidemic is the 1977 Russian flu which was probably caused by a leaked strain of H1N1 that had already circulated naturally until the 1950s. The 1967 Marburg virus outbreak (with only limited human-to-human transmission) was the result of zoonosis from rhesus macaques to employees at the Behringwerke, an industrial processing facility for pharmaceuticals in Marburg, Germany.

Even that I think is probably UNDUE, but I'm willing to compromise. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That seems to go to great lengths to avoid using the language in the source of "laboratory escape" and "laboratory workers". Sennalen (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably because the entire quote as I provided above is better when viewed in context? If you are uninterested in compromise, then I cannot help you and consensus is very clearly against you on this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly interested in compromise where it's based on sources and policy. We're on a productive track in this sub-thread. Sennalen (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Making a distinction about whether or not the laboratory was a "research laboratory" would be SYNTH, as Holmes does not do this. I suggest

The only incident of a lab-acquired infection leading to a large-scale epidemic was the 1977 Russian flu. It was probably caused by a leaked strain of H1N1 that had already circulated naturally before the 1950s. The 1967 Marburg virus outbreak occurred when laboratory workers contracted novel Marburg virus disease from grivets used in vaccine production. Sennalen (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Your language here about Marburg appears to be entirely your own, and de-emphasizes the language in the Holmes source: "The 1977 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic... is the only documented example of a human epidemic or pandemic resulting from research activity. No epidemic has been caused by the escape of a novel virus." It also doesn't appropriately describe why the 1967 outbreak doesn't apply to "The only incident of a lab-acquired infection". Basically, it appears to leave out important facts and instead implies a narrative not present in the sources. e.g. SYNTH — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The function of Holmes apropos Marburg is as a meta-source that confirms that Marburg being a lab leak is relevant to the topic of a Covid lab leak, for those who believe without evidence that policy demands such licensing. The direct source would be Slenczka or Ristanović. This pattern of a Covid-related name-drop paired with a pre-Covid detailed source appears several times in the status quo text, including the section on prior conspiracy theories. Holmes himself doesn't adequately explain why he is in a summation conflict with mainstream science, so there's not much we can do about that. Sennalen (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying that Holmes is in conflict with mainstream science, without actually demonstrating it. Where are the sources which describe your view as mainstream? Keep in mind, they must address the substantive points made by Holmes, not simply put "Marburg" and "laboratory" in the same sentence. (Which the critical review also does)

Also, you cannot simply criticize "Holmes." The "critical" review paper is the product of many multiple expert authors, published in a very well regarded journal edited by experts, and subjected to peer review. It isn't simply Holmes' opinion. This is the type of publication we actually use to establish what counts as "scientific consensus." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm using "Holmes" as shorthand here. The mainstream science is that an epidemic of novel Marburg virus began with a laboratory escape. Holmes et al do not explain why they both acknowledge the incident and contradict it by saying no such epidemic has occured. The most likely explanation is they are using a selective, not universally accepted, definition of epidemic that stipulates some number of cases or secondary transmission. Unfortunately, directly explaining that to the reader would be SYNTH. I believe it would be WP:NOTOR / WP:NOTSYNTH for the article to qualify it as no large-scale epidemic or no sustained epidemic as mere summary/interpretation/synonym identification. That's a compromise position for me, as I still think the best handling would be in-text attribution as advised by WP:INACCURACY. Ultimately the important thing is that a reader understands the facts. Sennalen (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I'm opposed to the proposed compromise. Due coverage of this is no mention because it is irrelevant. '67 Marburg was an outbreak of zoonotic origin, not a lab leak. Also we're well into WP:STICK territory. VQuakr (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing noted above immediately dissolves the already questionable position that the Marburg outbreak is not relevant. Zoonosis and lab leak are not mutually exclusive. Several sources discuss the possibility of zoonosis occuring in a laboratory. Sennalen (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No source has been presented that erodes that position, let alone "dissolves" it. VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No conflict with policies and guidelines has been identified. (Some names of policies and guidelines have been identified, but no conflict with the letter or spirit of them has been substantiated.) Sennalen (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It is in conflict with a reasonable, unmotivated reading of Holmes. You're getting good feedback from other editors which you should consider before continuing. fiveby(zero) 17:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This precisely. It's WP:OR claiming that Holmes is WP:FRINGE because it didn't freely substitute epidemic for outbreak like a handful of other sources. This is a situation where OP should WP:DGF and accept that their motivation as not being accepted as reasonable and accepted, rather than trying to WP:LAWYER their way into the article making a baby step towards their unaccepted goal. We have no WP:PACT that says we need to allow the article to creep in the direction of non-neutral goals just because there's a hypothetical good-faith argument that the proposer didn't make. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk page deliberations categorically can not be OR. None of this thread is substantiating a conflict with policies. Sennalen (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying talk page deliberations are the OR here. It's that you added an otherwise unrelated piece of content cited to a pre-COVID article. Making a connection in the article between the 1967 Marburg outbreak and the COVID lab leak theory without a citation making it for you was the OR. And arguably it's further WP:UNDUE to place it immediately prior to the Holmes-cited info.

Per above, there seem to be sources providing appropriately critical analysis of the Tweet at hand, which don't just take it at face value and would thus be more reasonable to add. I'll take a stab at this if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on the OR issue. Are there more than just the Forbes source you cited above? It's an unreliable "contributor" piece Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Good catch, Forbes likes to hide that info as much as they can. I'm not seeing anything else, it might just be a Twitter tempest that nobody else cares about, or we'll just need to wait for someone to respond. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct, it's non-RS besides being an inappropriately critical view. Sennalen (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Material that is appropriately cited to an RS is never original research. There is no policy requiring a meta-source to establish WP:Relevance to a topic. Sennalen (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's call it near-OR, then. Due to its placement immediately adjacent to the Holmes info which, at first glance, directly contradicts. Is it UNDUE, POV, or OR? Six of one, half dozen of the other. In any case, we'd be best off using a post-COVID source that places the current "fun fact" tweet in context with the COVID lab leak theory, or simply exclude it. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This opinion is inconsistent with our actual policy at WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think so, quote the relevant portion of WP:SYNTH. Sennalen (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No. You are welcome to read the policy. VQuakr (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Material that is appropriately cited to an RS is never original research ...If you think so, quote the relevant portion of WP:SYNTH
Okay, here you go: WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source

There is no policy requiring a meta-source to establish WP:Relevance to a topic

Sure, but there definitely is a passage in WP:NPOV that's relevant:

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

I have seen no evidence provided here that the view espoused by Sennalen here has any representation in reliable sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that an epidemic of novel Marburg virus occured starting with laboratory workers in 1967. That's not a minority view, so it's not undue. It doesn't require a combination of sources, so it's not SYNTH. Sennalen (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you don't understand the policy, but we don't have a duty to WP:SATISFY you with our answers. Consensus appears quite clear here. VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup, this is clear cut OP. OP is pushing a FRINGE POV based on eccentric wording and even more eccentric OR. Suggest close. Bon courage (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOR: To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article Your Marburg sources do not mention COVID. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for making a substantive connection between the policy text and disputed content. I maintain that the requirement of being "directly related" is met by being directly related to the theme of the paragraph and section. However, attention has been brought to the fact that Holmes et al. themselves connect the Marburg incident with Covid (which to my chagrin, I did not think to check for before my original edit.) What is needed now is consensus on how to phrase the 1967 events and their significance. Sennalen (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the significance is that in this case and others contact tracing provided actual evidence: Known laboratory outbreaks have been traced to both workplace and family contacts of index cases and to the laboratory of origin...Despite extensive contact tracing of early cases during the COVID-19... fiveby(zero) 15:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Holmes gives a better, more substantial distinguishing set of circumstances. However, with the exception of Marburg virus, all documented laboratory escapes have been of readily identifiable viruses capable of human infection and associated with sustained work in high titer cultures... Viral genomic sequencing without cell culture, which was routinely performed at the WIV, represents a negligible risk because viruses are inactivated during RNA extraction. No case of laboratory escape has been documented following the sequencing of viral samples. (Emphasis added) In short, Marburg was a result of zoonosis to lab workers from live animals, different from all other known lab escapes which involved high potency cultures, and Holmes is comparing that to the low-risk RNA sequencing work at WIV. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that's important and missing from the current content. fiveby(zero) 16:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

how about this as a draft? (underlined edits) @Fiveby@Bakkster Man

No epidemic has ever been caused by the leak of a novel virus from a research facility.[3] The only incident of a lab-acquired infection leading to an epidemic is the 1977 Russian flu which was probably caused by a leaked strain of H1N1 that had circulated naturally until the 1950s.[3] In 1967, a novel outbreak of the naturally occurring Marburg virus resulted from exposure of workers to grivet monkeys at an industrial pharmaceutical processing facility in Marburg, Germany. These two situations are distinct from the COVID-19 lab leak theory in that both had identifiable epidemiological links connecting early cases to the facility in question, and both involved exposures to viruses at higher concentrations than is typically present in sequencing studies, the type of study conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

These additions appear well represented in the "critical review" paper given the quotations provided above. I'd like these mentions to be much shorter given how little representation this has in the published literature, and would welcome any wordsmith to try and make it more succinct!! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Leave it out. My general question would be: do editors here think anything falls foul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, or is the intent to cram everything possible in? Encyclopedia article are meant to be a summary; this one is more maximal exposition. Bon courage (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Omit. Due coverage is no mention. VQuakr (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I tend to agree in general, I don't think we need to mention. If we did this is how I would want to do it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a source for the material starting at "These two situations...", particularly about the type of research at WIV? Scientists associated with WIV in 2019 were working with tissue collected from wild mammals[26] and sera collected from humans suspected of having novel coronavirus infections.[27] I have not found any source, RS or otherwise, stating that live research animals either were or were not used at WIV. Sennalen (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

see above [28][29]. If you do not see how one could summarize that quotation as I have, or have no suggestion for how to massage the language to be more accurate, then I honestly have no idea what version of this text would satisfy you. And, as said above, it is not our job to WP:SATISFY. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what you're reading now. It was a type of research done at WIV, but not the only type, and Holmes does not claim it was the only type. The proposed text is acceptable to me with "the type of study" adjusted to "a type of study".

Optionally, These two situations are distinct from the COVID-19 lab leak theory in that both had identifiable epidemiological links connecting early cases to the facility in question could be rendered less verbosely as something like "Unlike SARS-CoV-2, these incidents were definitively traced to a laboratory." Sennalen (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think similar to your the type of study vs a type of study concern (which, fair, there is definitely a better way to word that, such as "similar to studies conducted at the WIV"?), your suggestion "definitively traced to a laboratory" implies there are non-definitive links, of which I am aware of none. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Similar to studies conducted at the WIV" is not an improvement to me, but not out of the question. There certainly are non-definitive links in the form of the Propublica investigation and US State Department cables. I don't intend to hash that out in this discussion. Maybe "epidemiologically" instead of "definitively". Sennalen (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Epidemiological links is probably the right context. I know time to identify a source has been a topic of conversation, were these epidemiological links identified promptly? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

this for the immediate timeline in Marburg.fiveby(zero) 02:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

MARV and 1977 had actual real-life people who were connected to the facility (or its distributed vaccines in the 1977 A/H1N1 case) who were the earliest to get sick. COVID does not have that.

To put these actual factual hard-hitting epidemiologically contact-traced connections on even a somewhat similar level to...*checks notes*...speculation and discredited mistranslations of basic Chinese...is interesting to say the least. On one hand, we have actual connections. on the other, we have speculation with no actual evidence of any connection. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Relevant contact tracing was actively prevented by the Chinese government. Sennalen (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think DRASTIC alleged (unreliably) that WIV was keeping a large number of live bats in the lab, so similar to the Twitter "fun fact" prompting this discussion, there is an established context to consider. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We may have gone down a path that tries to say too much. Here's a more minimalistic option:

No epidemic has ever been caused by the leak of a novel virus. The 1967 outbreak of novel Marburg virus stemmed from laboratory animals, but did not lead to sustained re-transmission. The only incident of a lab-acquired infection leading to an epidemic is the 1977 Russian flu, which was probably caused by a leaked strain of H1N1 that had circulated naturally until the 1950s.

Sentences 1 and 3 are from the status quo. Sennalen (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"laboratory animals" seems to be an over-simplification. These were grivets in an industrial facility used to manufacture vaccines. Not a research laboratory. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the purpose of the laboratory, that is the word used by all RS I've seen to describe the setting of the exposures. Sennalen (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It could maybe include a sentence clarifying that the virus was not an intentional object of study. Sennalen (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Racism associated with both wet market and lab leak hypotheses

@Vquakr reverted my edit below adding for NPOV and context that racism was associated with both hypotheses. I added the qualifier “in some quarters,” bc obviously not everyone who subscribes to either hypothesis does so for racist reasons and not everyone who is exposed to either idea becomes racist or has their racism exacerbated thereby. PLEASE read the AP article cited. It provides more than enough reliable, verifiable evidence within the meaning of Wikipedia guidelines.

The article seems to me to be substantially slanted to an anti-lab leak hypothesis POV. This is an step to ameliorate.

My edit: As with the rival hypothesis of a wet-market origin,, the lab leak hypothesis has in some quarters been informed by (and has, in turn, fueled) racist and xenophobic sentiments.{{refn|name=racism and xenophobia|This has been described by numerous experts:
JustinReilly (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources

FYI I’ve reverted JustinReilly (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vquaker gave as reason for revert: “false equivalence.” Please expand if you still take issue after reading AP article. Thank you8 JustinReilly (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant weaselling and typos in a WP:LEDEBOMB now being edit-warred in. User warned. Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The charge of edit warring is a little much since I left the essence of the preexisting text in place, mainly just added for NPOV. Why did you not make this comment for @VQuaker when he “started it” by reverting my edit with no explanation but “false equivalence” in the summary. I read the entry on false equivalence and saw nothing apposite. Similarly, your claim in the summary of your reversion of “irrelevant weaselling,” doesn’t at all apply as far as I can see within Wikipedia’s MOS weasel definition. If it’s ad hominem that’s not good. Your criticism of Ledebombing seems to have some merit; I wasn’t aware of this guideline. I will come back with suggested changes when I have time… JustinReilly (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:WEASEL

“Words to watch: some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded/considered, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, scientists claim, it is often said, officially, is widely regarded as, X has been described as Y ...

Weasel wordsare words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.” JustinReilly (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You reverted me once too, for a combined 2 reverts of my edit compared to my one revert. I feel like I (and others who don’t fit the power structure’s narrative) get picked on and held to an unequally high standard. Asking u to chill. JustinReilly (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Editors who think there's a "power structure’s narrative" are ipso facto WP:PROFRINGE and likely WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia has been blighted by such editors in this topic space, and much time has been wasted having to remove them. Please heed WP:CTOP. Bon courage (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think JustinReilly's original edit is exactly the text that needs to stand in the article. However, the bigger issue here is continued uncivil PoV pushing. WP:BESTSOURCES have confirmed that the lab leak hypothesis is a legitimate scientific question.[30][31] Our article acknowledges gives lip service to this, but certain editors WP:DONTGETIT and continue to edit in pursuit of the goal of presenting lab leak hypotheses as primarly pseudoscientific or racist. This is disruptive and time-wasting.

A few RSOPINION have recently commented on the politicized anti-scientific opposition to lab leak theories.[32][33] The NYT piece includes a link to the AP News one that JustinReilly sought to include. Despite the 2020 publishing date of the latter, some continued relevance is implied. It is time to acknowledge that politicized, racist strains of thought exist within multiple lines of investigation into Covid origins, without defining any of them. Attempting to suppress recognition of racist facets to the market origin hypothesis is what is in fact WP:PROFRINGE.

The main legitimate objection here regards due weight. This is not the article on the market origin hypothesis, and I don't believe there is such an article. I started to recognize that as a problem in its own right when the rushed and politicized raccoon dog preprint came out. My thinking in the earlier "Molting" section was not broad enough. This article is being used as a clearinghouse for all origin investigation, when really that should go into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and new WP:SPINOUT articles from there. There's some restructuring that needs to place across the whole topic area. That's obviously a very long-term project.

The AP piece is over-weighted when placed alongside the existing racism material, because the existing racism material is also placed in a way that is overweighted. That is the problem that can be addressed in the short term. Sennalen (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

1) Those are not the BESTSOURCES. They are correspondence pieces in semi-relevant journals. 2) RSOPINION are not very useful for establishing scientific consensus. We have WP:RS/AC for that 3) These Opinion piece authors are not experts about this topic, and therefore these are not even very reliable for this, see WP:RSEDITORIAL.

Agree the AP piece would be undue and overweighted if included in the lead at all. it's also not relevant to this article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Helden is the starting point in the shift in scientific consensus, Domingo is the most recent relevent review article I'm aware of. I don't know of any significant review article in 2022 or later that says lab leak hypotheses are not an area of legitimate scientific investigation. These opinion articles have parity with sources that we use to call the lab leak racist, such as Gorski. (And that may be too generous to Gorski.) Sennalen (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The article does not "call the lab leak racist". Why say false things? Bon courage (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In the lede, The idea has been informed by (and has, in turn, fueled) racist and xenophobic sentiments.

In the body, By January 2020 some lab leak proponents were promoting a narrative with conspiracist components; such narratives were often supported using "racist tropes that suggest that epidemiological, genetic, or other scientific data had been purposefully withheld or altered to obscure the origin of the virus." David Gorski refers to "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government". Sennalen (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm Exactly. So not what you wrote at all. And a faithful reflection of on-point sources. To overturn that you'd need a very strong source saying something like "the lab leak idea has zero racist aspects". Good luck with that. Bon courage (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be "overturned", just de-weighted and updated in line with current sources. Sennalen (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

What recent sources are there we're missing that discuss the racist aspects of this topic? Knowledge on this aspect seems fairly stable/settled and well covered in good sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that sources are missing, they are just not being properly taken into consideration by article text that's older than the 2021 shift in public and scientific consensus. It is not enough for the article to note that such a shift took place. It must be reflected everywhere. Sennalen (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

What "shift" in the racism aspect have you got sources for? Are racists even more for it now? As the science solidifies against lableak are they becoming more desperate/vehement for example? We need sources. (Add: I notice from this[34] Nicholas Wade and the KKK are mixed up in this. Is this the kind of thing we need to update with?) Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Which sources? You've indicated Domingo and Helden, but these are not very high quality sources, as Helden was not peer-reviewed. Domingo was peer-reviewed but in a journal that is not very topic-relevant (environmental science). Domingo himself is also not a virologist, ID doctor, or pathologist. He's a toxicologist, and (interestingly) the editor-in-chief of the journal where this is published. He has no training in epidemiology, contact tracing, viral sampling, biosafety, gain-of-function research, etc. his expertise is in food safety. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Not buying the idea that, as a general matter, virologists are the best experts for lab leak. And definitely not buying the idea that virologists are the best sources for racism. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Not buying the idea that, as a general matter, virologists are the best experts for lab leak. And definitely not buying the idea that virologists are the best sources for racism
I agree with you, I would include a lot of other people in that category, not just virologists. But you know who I wouldn't include? Medical toxicologists. Their main purview is household poisons. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Best of all are sources specialising in whackjob stuff generally - and luckily we have the WP:SBM source (Gorski) as a golden one for this. If anybody knows of more such golden sources, bring them forth! Bon courage (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also not buying the idea that LL is "whackjob stuff". The FBI, for example, you might disagree with them, but they are definitely not whackjobs Adoring nanny (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, one could probably argue that J Edgar Hoover was. But your point is well-taken. It is also not very relevant to this discussion! We should focus on the task at hand: Are there sufficient sources to show that a discussion of racism with the wet market is WP:DUE inclusion for this article? Seems to me the answer is "no". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct. But the racism part of LL (which is most definitely 'whackjob stuff') gets lots of coverage in quality RS, so needs to be prominent. Also for WP:FRINGE topics such as this their fringe nature needs to be front and centre! Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

For non-fringe topics such as this, emphasis on fringe opinions about them gives them undue weight. Sennalen (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This topic is governed by WP:FRINGE. If you want to reverse that, raise a query at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The fringe guideline applies to any topic or page. There is no consensus[35] that the lab leak hypothesis is a fringe theory. Sennalen (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That RfC was not on whether this topic was fringe, effectively it was about how fringe it was (minority view or conspiracy theory). Bon courage (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say it is "fringe-adjacent" given the many similar theories which are patently obviously conspiracy theories e.g. that the virus was released from Fort Detrick in Maryland. As there is no consensus, there is also no consensus that it is not a fringe theory. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

SBM is a source of last resort when sourcing about a fringe theory is so scarce that nothing else can be found to criticize it. Sennalen (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

SBM is a source of last resort when sourcing about a fringe theory is so scarce that nothing else can be found to criticize it
This appears to be your personal opinion. I would place SBM above ALL primary scientific articles and even some lower-tier secondary scientific publications. I would also place it above most news sources with maybe the exception of Snopes and Healthfeedback. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Of all the opinions I've heard, that's one of them. Sennalen (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur. Dervorguilla (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I took a fresh look at their most recent articles, and to my surpise most of them were sober considerations of evidence, rather than the vitriolic pseudoskeptical polemics I've come to expect from the site. Some of them still were the latter, so any general assessment of the sites reliability has to take into account that they are capable of both. Sennalen (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I gave first and latest. Coming up with best may take some time. Sennalen (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)