Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36

Unclear origin but lab leak possible

This is a nice review in the BMJ from July 2023 discussing new findings and positions. https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p1556

We should probably soften our wording here. The cause is unknown and various organizations have various positions on what is most likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The current consensus section at top of this page is clear that there is no consensus whether the lab leak theory is considered minority scientific opinion or conspiracy theory. If you want to revisit that then have at it. TarnishedPathtalk 05:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes I read that. The consensus is based on 3 year old sources and that was a reasonable position 3 years ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
We keep going round the same point; "it" is not a conspiracy theory (the plain proposition), but it has given risen to an enormous ecosystem of conspiracy theories as soon as any flesh is put on it. Are are we wanting to say that yes it might have been made by the Americans in Fort Detrick (i.e. the Chinese version of the story)? That BMJ piece also gets suckered in the the 'sick workers' misinformation[1] and commits several of the fallacies actual virologists have subsequently complained about (like the 'too much of a cooincidence' line), so is a poor source.
For an even more up-to-date source on Pubmed, perhaps we could consider PMID:37697176 which has (my emphasis)? :

While the American, Australian, and Chinese claims were all theoretically possible, as mentioned, they have now been discredited as there are no good data to support them, and we have to look elsewhere for the “origins” of the new virus. Luckily, here, the evidence is plentiful. A substantial body of knowledge, supported by a great deal of data, favours the original hypothesis of most informed experts: that the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus occurred, like its predecessors, as a result of the well-documented processes of mutation within animal reservoirs followed by cross-species transmission to humans.

Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC); 09:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah the journal you cite has an impact factor of less than 1.[2] and has been only around for 20 years. The BMJ has an impact factor of 107 and been around since 1840.
About the sickness of workers the BMJ says "allegedly sick with signs of a respiratory illness" and "It concluded that, although several researchers were “mildly ill” in autumn 2019, “they experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not associated with covid-19, and some of them were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to covid-19.” Two of the three researchers named told Science5 that the accusations were “ridiculous,” with one denying being unwell and another pointing out that they work mainly on bioinformatics and not with live viruses."
Not sure you read the BMJ piece... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, okay they do go on to disclaim it. But I'm not sure this BMJ editorial adds anything to what we already say. We have scholarly sources going into more depth on the various lab leak narratives. Bon courage (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of the age it's my understanding that new RfCs are required to revisit the results of previous RfCs? TarnishedPathtalk 09:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
But to do what? We're not going to say "it" is a conspiracy theory (whatever it is), and we already say a leak is a theoretical possibility. We say there is zero evidence. We say that's it's a magnet for conspiracy theorists and racists. We even go into the weeds about the US spooks. What are we not saying? Bon courage (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The BMJ supports "Many virologists, epidemiologists, and other infectious disease experts still say that all available evidence points to SARS-COV-2 spilling over to humans from an animal host, most likely at a wet market in Wuhan." rather than most so added that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
There's been some recent research on that. It's "most".[3] ~~ Bon courage (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Interesting "77% probability to a zoonosis, 21% to the lab-leak scenario" making this one of the two main hypothesis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Doc James, the most scientist bit has been discussed here many, many times before and I believe there is consensus on this. TarnishedPathtalk 10:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
With Bon courage’s source I agree. The lab leak is viewed as less probable currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I am unclear, what is the suggested edit. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Proposing toning down "highly controversial" to simply "controversial" based on experts feeling that the lab leak hypothesis has a 21% probability based on Bon courage's source.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
No particular strong feeling on "highly", but the 21% presumably doesn't include the LL proponents who think the virus was a bioweapon, that it was engineered not to affect Jews, or that virologists should be executed for their supposed role in it. The point is LL is a lot more than just entertaining a possibility, it's also a whole morass of some of the most disgusting and stupid ideas possible. Bon courage (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Yah definitely. And all those things you mention are full blown conspiracies. But diseases do sometimes escape labs ala Marburg virus outbreak. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes it has happened. The issue here is that in order for this particular virus to have escaped that lab it would have to had been there in the first place and there is zero credible evidence of that. The evidence we have been presented in the past has been along the lines of 'employees of the lab were amongst the first to get infected from the virus' as if it is of some significance that people living in an area in which they work would catch a highly communicable disease that's going around. TarnishedPathtalk 10:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The evidence is more that they were known to be working with that family of viruses. The sickness bit had no support. Though it is a super common family of viruses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 or any plausible ancestor virus was in any lab prior to the pandemic. But there were lots of bats: so the 'zoonosis in the lab' (or zoonosis via lab-worker fieldwork) scenario is one at the more respectable end of things that has been discussed.
The problem with this Wikipedia article is that is splices together the extreme fringe Alex Jones-esque topic with the more respectable bare hypothesis (it's possible it might have 'come from' a lab). It would be much better to hive off the 'covid origin conspiracy theory' material and put the respectable stuff in the Origin of COVID-19 article. But this is how the lab-leak proponents on Wikipedia seem to like it. Why, is a puzzle! Bon courage (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
User talk:Sennalen was doing a great job of trying to balance things out before she got site banned for her troubles - Palpable (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Getting an arbitration block for disruptive/fringe editing across multiple topics[5] (including this one) speaks of an idea of "doing a great job" which is at odds with the Wikipedia community. Bon courage (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Their current situation suggests otherwise. TarnishedPathtalk 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The DEFUSE proposal is a lot more than just "working with that family of viruses". They described an uncanny number of features of SARS-CoV-2 in 2018. A recently FOIA'd draft even suggested saving money by doing some of the work at BSL-2 in Wuhan.
Yet the current article doesn't even have a sub-sub-section for DEFUSE. - Palpable (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but this is just lore among LL pushers. A proposal for something else that's didn't happen is not relevant to reality. Bon courage (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The article should classify all DARPA baaed theories as strictly conspiracy based. There is zero evidence ANY of this work was performed.
j 184.182.203.105 (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
"Project DEFUSE was a rejected DARPA grant application, that proposed to sample bat coronaviruses from various locations in China.[136] The rejected proposal document was leaked to the press by DRASTIC in September 2021."
Add "One conspiracy theory focuses on Project DEFUSE that was..."
184.182.203.105 (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@DocJames: @Colin: iff you guys are taking an interest in improving this article I can try to contribute.
For an quantitative-minded overview of the evidence I strongly recommend the Bayesian analysis from physicist Michael Weissman [6]. I think Weissman doesn't allow enough space for unknown unknowns, but his well-referenced breakdown of the evidence is useful whether you agree with his numbers or not. - Palpable (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
More Bayesian wank on .. Substack. Seriously? Bon courage (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
That's a remarkably juvenile criticism, based entirely on the URL.
The actual article is a long and careful analysis by a senior physicist who has a side interest in statistics education. So far, one result of his investigation [7] has been published in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society and it sounds like there is more to come. - Palpable (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
A retired physic professor with no expertise in biomedicine self-publishing on substack is never going to be of interest to Wikipedia. And the bayesian stuff is just a way to lend a science-y veneer to ignorant suppositions fed into the process (this guy seems to think SCV2 was 'pre-adapted' to humans, for example). If his properly published works gets any serious interest get back to us. Bon courage (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, I would encourage anybody with a serious interest in this topic to read Weissman's analysis.
It is a carefully reasoned review of the scientific evidence, and whether you agree with the conclusions or not it will improve your understanding of why many reasonable and intelligent people suspect research involvement.
It is also refreshingly free of the insults and mudslinging that have driven most people away from this topic. - Palpable (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
That's a remarkably juvenile criticism, based entirely on the URL. You may want to familiarize yourself with WP:SELFPUB. Editors are correct to immediately label Substack as unreliable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm familiar with SELFPUB (and the special Gorski exception). This is the discussion page, it is fine to share articles that would not be considered RS in article space.
If you skim the analysis you will find that it is packed with supporting links, many of which are RS. - Palpable (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
If's the usual rubbish that forms the lore of the LL cultists, busily citing each other on Substack. Honestly, who reads this rubbish!? Bon courage (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, part of it has been published in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Proximity ascertainment bias in early COVID case locations.
I don't blame you for being sick of this debate, but if you can't accept new evidence, you have no business gatekeeping here.
For those who want to understand the topic, I still recommend Weissman's analysis. - Palpable (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there's any point reading substack for the purposes of editing this article. As to the published article, let's see if it gets picked up by any relevant secondary sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Bon courage: I really wish you would make an attempt to engage with people on talk pages in a way that did not involve calling them cultists and rubbish and wank -- it's extremely unpleasant to read, and it actively drives people away from the conversation. jp×g🗯️ 07:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
My disdain is not for "people on talk pages" (and I'm not "calling them" anything), but rather for very poor sources being pushed (blog posts). Bon courage (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes but in the real world Weissman is a subject matter expert in statistics who has published on COVID origins in a respectable stats journal. - Palpable (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
He's a retired physicist. Experts on "statistics" are in any case not qualified to make assessments about any biomedical priors they invent to feed into their processes, and this is of no interest since it's in a blog post. As to the published source I wrote "as to the published article, let's see if it gets picked up by any relevant secondary sourcing". Bon courage (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Send a bottle of wine to Gorski and he should be able to pound out something you like pretty quickly. - Palpable (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean? Bon courage (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Just a reminder of the flexible quality standards for sources here. Enjoy your article. - Palpable (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
If anything here is out of kilter with WP:CONSENSUS and/or WP:PAGs by all means raise it directly, rather than making odd comments about wine? Is this some kind of trolling? Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that would be such a touchy subject. - Palpable (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
You were notified this was a WP:CTOP. I'm going to disengage now because your contributions just look unproductive. Bon courage (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Frankly you seem a little thin-skineed for a guy who goes around flinging accusations about racist conspiracy theories all the time. But I'll strike the reference to wine. - Palpable (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
"Of the 1138 experts invited to participate, 168 provided usable data—a pretty low response rate" - not that many experts. Graham Beards (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

What kind of source is this BMJ article? The journal classifies this as a "feature" and Mun-Keat Looi is the BMJ's "International Features Editor". Other "features" on the BMJ are here which seem a mix of UK medical politics and social healthcare concerns. Isn't this a bit more like a magazine article, albeit in a magazine for doctors, than what MEDRS might call a "review". And this article, which is now nearly a year old, was explicitly written in response to the theory being "in the news" again, such as a Sunday Times investigation and a BBC podcast and US "intelligence". On the matter of what the scientific consensus is, the article mentions Michael Worobey, who is themselves a researcher into Covid origins, so might not be independent enough to be a great source for what the consensus is, and cites what they told The Economist, which last time I checked, wasn't a medical journal. So the article is fine for what it is, but it seems to be a tertiary source, based on stuff the author found on the internet, by a non-expert "science" feature writer. -- Colin°Talk 14:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a "feature" which I assume is a kind of news/editorial piece, and not peer-reviewed. Not a terrible source (considering some we've been offered) but not a review article and I don't think it really offers anything new in the mix.
An interesting source is this[8] podcast in which three virologists (Worobey, Andersen & Holmes) talk to two academic about LL, but probably not suitable for use here? Bon courage (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Can we include this podcast as a source in the article? Seems important to include the views of the scientists studying this most closely. 2600:8804:6600:4:4980:DCD1:EEA7:32F2 (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think so; I think it's a superb source for anybody wanting to understand LL, but we really want more independent/secondary sourcing here for 'accepted knowledge' on this topic. Bon courage (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This recent Risk Analysis paper suggests that the Lab Leak possibility is rather more likely than the zoonotic one. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
That's a primary study which generally fail WP:MEDRS. Graham Beards (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
As noted at the top of this page:
  • There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS.
Palpable (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
But MEDRS is pertinent to anything biomedical (which you forgot to mention). In any case, the is just primary research doing the making-up-numbers thing with a mathematical veneer, like the rootclaim thing which came out with bizarre probabilities.[9] Pseudosience basically. We won't be going there without reliable sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. This study appears to be an attempt to get headlines to say "covid came from a lab" without actually scientifically demonstrating that. 2600:8804:6600:4:C85E:667E:14B1:53B (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If it helps this discussion, BBC Science Focus magazine has a rather good appraisal of the the article, quoting respected scientists.

  • Leach, Noa (March 15, 2024). "COVID-19 more likely originated from a lab than animals, bold new study claims". BBC Science Focus. Some scientists are trying to get closer to the truth about how the COVID pandemic started – but others question whether that's possible.

In summary: no new evidence, as before anything is possible, dressed up speculation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Shouldnt this be called a conspiracy theory?

I mean, supposedly and by definition a conspiracy theory is a theory that there has been a conspiracy, which this topic falls right under since the argument is that there was a conspiracy to either engineer or at least hide the origin of the virus. Kasperquickly (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Depends on which version you mean. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
If you just assert "it's possible it may have come from a lab" that's not a conspiracy theory. But beyond that, nearly all the narratives that have been woven very much are conspiracy theories. About the only 'respectable' hypothetical narrative is that lab workers got accidentally infected while handling bat samples in the lab or out in the field, before travelling 15km to the local seafood market where they infected others. And it's debatable whether that scenario counts as a 'lab leak' anyway. Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe the only possible strict/literal laboratory origin scenario that does not include claims of a conspiracy would be an accidental infection via a sample that had not yet been analyzed where no record would have yet been generated, or failure to discover records of an analysis during investigations. I don't think I've seen this proposed by LLers. Given this and the scenario Bon courage has listed above being the only non-conspiratorial scenarios, it seems safe to label the lab scenario category in general as a conspiracy theory. 2600:8804:6600:4:C85E:667E:14B1:53B (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I would be willing to bet money that this specific question has been asked and discussed more than ten times over the course of this talk page's history (there are three failed RMs in the header on that issue alone), so whatever the article says is the result of quite a lot of yelling, and indeed some cyberblood was drawn in the form of sitebans and noticeboard threads. It is probably not a great idea to relitigate it, but I can't stop you if you really want to. jp×g🗯️ 07:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
this sounds like a threat ? Kasperquickly (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Since a admin has placed a one-year moratorium on page move requests (i.e. renaming) running from 5 March 2024, editors kicking off about this are at risk of sanctions. So seeing it as a threat is wise. Bon courage (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy stand-alone section

Perhaps it would be useful to move all theories that rely on conspiracies into its own section? This way the few proposals that dont wont have to be associated with the craziness. 2600:8804:6600:4:B803:97C2:78FF:BEFA (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed a link to a Kialo discussion on this topic from the external links. It doesn't seem to meet any of the points under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Also, given it's user-generated content it doesn't seem suitable for linking on a contentious topic link this. Unsurprisingly the weightings given to the arguments on Kialo don't accord with the reliable sources in the article and skew towards promoting a lab leak. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like that recently-created {{Kialo arguments tree}} is being spammed all over the Project. I have nominated it for deletion. Bon courage (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not being "spammed" but linked at a few places at once where it's likely very useful for many readers and usually more useful than the other external links in that section. I'm not surprised it was removed here; the argument map aims to just neutrally show all the arguments from all sides and in a way that is transparent, overseeable, and scrutinizable. I don't see why it would not be a useful resource here. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Because it's just a site where any joe-know-nothing can create an account and write whatever ignorant statements they want. It seems to have spammed into multiple articles. Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
No, claims need to be accepted by debate moderators. If arguments are coherent, relevant and reasonable, they can get included. This is the antidote to ignorant-statement-making in the conventional linear writing that can't be scrutinized and without their relational structure and context visible. I'm not saying these can be useful resources on all articles, just some such as this one. Are you saying Wikipedia is "just a site where joe-know-nothing can create an account and write whatever ignorant statements they want"? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia, with its massive number of moderators and 864 admins, is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. User-generated sites don't fare well here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I know but you don't seem to understand that I'm not arguing about whether or not it's a reliable source. It can often be a useful resource. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I fail to see how opinions from people unrelated to SARS-CoV-2, Wuhan Institute of Virology, virology in general, genome engineering, etc. are useful to this article. Wikipedia is very fussy about anything medical WP:MEDRS. If you wish to read those arguments yourself and use them to debate a case on this talk page, that might be OK, assuming you can find RS to back them up. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
These are not opinions but arguments extracted from sources like The New York Times or studies. They are just all integrated into one structured map.
…are useful to this article Yes, agree – that's why it is not and cannot be a reference here but is just a useful resource in the EL (that by the way nearly nobody looks at anyway and is contextualized as providing insights about what arguments there have been in the public debate, not as providing information from a select authoritative source). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
These are not opinions but arguments. Arguments are presentations of opinions. sources like The New York Times. I just looked and very little is sourced to anywhere. Some is sourced to this article. Citogenesis O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
If the majority of lab leak theories are conspiracies, why is MEDRS relevant to this article? 2600:8804:6600:4:2012:A971:5473:A6A4 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
To make sure we reflect reality? Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for additional Admin

This does not belong here. Take it to either WP:AN/I or WP:AE if you believe there are behavioural issues which need addressing. TarnishedPathtalk 14:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

Reading the talk threads, it seems to me that editor @Bon courage has disproportionate impact on this talk page. Others have commented on the tone used by @Bon courage when speaking to other editors as antagonistic. I agree. It's my suggestion that an additional admin who has not yet contributed would be more helpful for improving this article. The professionalism of @Bon courage, at least on this talk page, seems to be hampered by their ambiguous, unnecessary references to popular opinion, such as in comments like " The hot take on LL at the moment is that it was a ruse sold to the sheeple, and that those who have truly taken the red pill can see LL for the lie it is (as there was no virus)." This type of engagement would not be tolerated in less senior editors or admins, and suggests an abuse of privilege. There are minor editors here trying in earnest to inform the public's encyclopedic search for whether sars-cov-2 and similar viruses may have been tied to laboratory research, and whether it may have accidentally escaped. Thus is a subject which has been given better consideration in the wiki pages covering the earlier SARS outbreaks. We may not like the conclusions the public draws on the information presented, but, for example, if there is a source that can substantiate that any research on sars like viruses was being done on animal vectors in laboratories in Wuhan, that is relevant information and should be provided, if not here then in the pertinent articles. UserSwamp (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

DRASTIC

Now that the main phase of the pandemic is in the rear view window, it's clear to me that the lab-leak advocacy group DRASTIC doesn't pass WP:SUSTAINED, and could adequately be covered in a few sentences in this article. Most of the sources in that article don't even mention DRASIC, but merely debunk claims made by its members. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Good points made here. Perhaps we should prune most if not all mentions of this group. 2600:8804:6600:4:4980:DCD1:EEA7:32F2 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and redirected the article here.[10] The contents of the DRASTIC article are already covered pretty much in their entirety in this article already, so I don't feel there is need to merge content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
excellent work, That page was likely set up by one of the member of that group anyway. 2600:8804:6600:4:4980:DCD1:EEA7:32F2 (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree the DRASTIC article was hugely duplicative. good redirect — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding submission date for Project DEFUSE.

I think it would be relevant to add the submission date for Project DEFUSE which is 3/27/18 [11]? 牢记使命 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This addition would provide historical context and improve clarity for readers especially those looking into chronological development of events. 牢记使命 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is not about it, and what would it tell us (as it was rejected)? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
While Project DEFUSE was indeed rejected, the submission date still adds important context to the timeline of events. It helps readers understand when these ideas were first proposed in relation to other developments in the COVID-19 story. The aim is not to emphasize the importance of this specific project but rather ensure a comprehensive and chronological overview. 牢记使命 (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
But what has this to do with COVID? As it was rejected it has no link to subsequent events. 15:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the timeline for mentioned events in the article is still important. Do you think it's not? 牢记使命 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
A time line of events that helped spread the virus, yes, a time line of events that might have had an impact, yes, even a time line of accusations about the lab leak. This is none of those as a rejected idea can't have had any impact, it was rejected. There really is no more to say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't refute the point about the project being rejected or argue for it having any connection to COVID-19, I just think it would be relevant and useful to add the submission date. Does it make sense to you? Maybe it would make more sense to remove the section with the project DEFUSE completely, if adding information such as submission date is considered to be irrelevant. 牢记使命 (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks like this would not have a reliable secondary-source demonstrating it's a WP:DUE factoid. So I am opposed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying that document in the link haven't been confirmed by DARPA etc and could be fabricated, so it would mean that submission date could be wrong? If that's the case, then I retract my edit proposal. 牢记使命 (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Sure, that's certainly part of it. But also no.
Read WP:RSUW to understand the concept of "Due" and "Undue" information. We need secondary reliable sources to tell us which information is pertinent to our readers. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually I checked the article and Project DEFUSE had this source [12]. Maybe the whole section about Project DEFUSE is "undue" information and should be removed? 牢记使命 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The DEFUSE proposal was real. DARPA's public statement just said that they didn't fund it.
Also Shibbolethink is conflating DUE with RS, as a senior editor he should know better.
The timing of DEFUSE so close to the pandemic is obviously suspicious, and Weissman goes so far as to quantify just how much of a coincidence it is. It would obviously be DUE for any article that was trying to explain lab leak theories. - Palpable (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The timing of DEFUSE so close to the pandemic is obviously suspicious ← that smells ripely fringey. What's the source for that? How can a abortive proposal affect a pandemic? Bon courage (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
To sum it up information about Project DEFUSE is due enough to be on the page and have some details for example "One proposed alteration was to modify bat coronaviruses to insert a cleavage site for the Furin protease at the S1/S2 junction of the spike (S) viral protein" which is from document, but not due enough to have the detail about submission date of the project. This feels unreasonable to me, but I guess I'm not understanding something. 牢记使命 (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

A related question, is the sentence "The rejected proposal document was posted online by DRASTIC in September 2021" WP:DUE? 184.182.203.105 (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

New information about lab leak

Is this source suitable for the article? https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-shared-gobsmacking-lab-leak-190000823.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall 99.48.35.129 (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2024

Additional source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-shared-intel-with-uk-showing-high-likelihood-of-covid-19-lab-leak-report/ar-BB1lRmZr

If there is no objection, I should like to include this information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.35.129 (talk • contribs)

The source for the second is Fox which is unreliable. The sources in the first seem to be an unnamed former official and other officials in the Trump administration while Trump was calling the virus a hoax. I suggest we wait. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for two retired editors coming out of retirement and agreeing with each other about their biases? 2605:A601:A862:A200:5155:B442:2A0C:56D5 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Definitely much more appropriate than dodging the good reasoning and attacking the messenger. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Who? as it seems to be any editor who posted here is very active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)
Fox is no more unreliable than your average left wing outlet. 2605:A601:AC1D:F000:1AC:BDD0:6E0A:D988 (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Your opinion is not justified. See WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, which has been discussed several times. The "average left wing outlet" has not been ordered to pay about 800 million to people they lied about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
So by your same logic CNN and The Washington Post aren't reliable either.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/washington-post-sandmann-settlement-lawsuit/index.html 2605:A601:AC1D:F000:D71:F239:72C1:EA23 (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
As I said: See WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. If you want to change that, go to the talk page there. Now you want to change WP:RSPCNN and WP:WAPO too. For that, go to the same place. But check the archives before that, since all three of those have been discussed before and repeating already-refuted reasoning would be a waste of time.
This page is for improving the lab-leak article, not for Fox public relations campaigns. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Characterizing the suspicion regarding the proximity of COVID-19's origin to the Wuhan lab as objectively "misplaced" is not rigorous.

That's the most polite way to put it. It would probably be more correct to call it an egregious violation of basic logic and wikipedia's policies. The WIV was already known as one of the foremost, if not the foremost, coronavirus research labs in the world. It is blatantly false to imply that it was comparable to labs that could be found in "most cities." The entire lede needs serious work in light of the recent, clear trend toward expert acceptance of the lab leak hypothesis. 2601:547:1903:2200:680A:46ED:B049:96E6 (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
At this point there is a near consensus among credible experts that, at the very least, the lab leak hypothesis is worthy of investigation, yet this article links old sources from embarrassed researchers claiming the lab leak hypothesis is a debunked conspiracy theory.
An MIT researcher in good standing wrote an OPED that the NYT published today giving detailed reasons why she believes the lab leak was the probable source of the pandemic (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/opinion/covid-lab-leak.html). If the discourse has shifted so dramatically that the NYT is publishing writers that support the lab leak theories, the rhetoric in this wiki article is no longer acceptable.
A tenured professor and molecular biologist at Rutgers University, Richard Ebright, has been ardently supporting the lab leak hypothesis as almost certainly true. (https://x.com/r_h_ebright?lang=en)
There are of course many others as well.
Regarding my specifically mentioned concern about the mischaracterization of the suspicion regarding the WIV proximity to the first outbreaks, the aforementioned NYT article debunks the narrative currently being peddled in this wiki article. Additionally, the following article from a respected expert in computational biology uses statistical methods to thoroughly disproves some of the research used as sources in the wiki article: https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-case-for-a-lab-origin-of-sars. 2601:547:1903:2200:3554:255C:2C98:6B70 (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
This whole article proves that Wikipedia peddles misinformation without any accountability. Thesmallfriendlygiant (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories, grift and nonsense on twitter or substack are of no use here, and newspapers are poor sources for anything in the realm of biomedicine. Despite the active ecosystem of fringe 'beliefs' in the USA, high-quality sourcing exists for this topic on which Wikipedia can base an article. The proximity argument is based on a basic logic error as they explain. Bon courage (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB and WP:RSOPINION sources are generally not good for statements of fact. TarnishedPathtalk 07:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
What we say "Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories." meaning that at least some are reasonable. This article is about all of them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear: Wikipedia is not denying the possibility of a lab leak, such things have happened in the past, could well have happened here, and will happen again. But coronaviruses are not unusual [see common cold] and the infection pathway of many viruses from animal to human is well trodden. ("Bird flu" is the best known recent example.) Unless and until a clear scientific evidence emerges that conclusively identifies one of the many possible routes, Wikipedia will continue to recognise that multiple possibilities exist – but give priority to the consensus of reliable scientific sources which still favors the boringly conventional route. You may find Introduction to viruses helpful in understanding the fundamentals. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Please address the specific claim I've made. Claiming that the proximity to the WIV is not a valid reason for suspicion is indefensible and supported in the article only by the following egregiously misleading claim:
"Central to many is the misplaced suspicion about the proximity of the outbreak to a virology institute that studies coronaviruses, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Most large Chinese cities have laboratories that study coronaviruses, and virus outbreaks typically begin in rural areas, but are first noticed in large cities. If a coronavirus outbreak occurs in China, there is a high likelihood it will occur near a large city, and therefore near a laboratory studying coronaviruses."
As I mentioned previously, this is indefensible primarily on the grounds that the WIV is the foremost research lab for SARS-like viruses. It is not comparable to labs you might find in "most large Chinese cities." Additionally, COVID-19's defining feature, the S1/S2 junction FCS, had been proposed by the WIV as a topic of gain of function research in the years leading up to the pandemic. (Already linked the source, which is the NYT article written by an MIT expert, which contains sources for the claims which you guys have failed to address.)
These are simply facts. You don't have to agree that they make the lab leak hypothesis more compelling than a zoonotic origin, but that doesn't excuse the misleading nature of the section in question, which implies that there is no reason to consider the proximity of the WIV to the initial outbreak as suspicious in any way. You guys incriminate your inability to objectively evaluate the evidence of my claims when you fail to address this specific objection and instead rely on your faith that the overall lab leak hypothesis is unlikely to be true. 2601:547:1903:2200:3554:255C:2C98:6B70 (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
In 2018, researchers proposed to insert a “human-specific” furin cleavage site in a SARS-CoV in Wuhan.
In 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged with a “human-specific” furin cleavage site in Wuhan.
The definition of conjunction fallacy. Bravo. 195.29.221.242 (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
There are some information consistent with a lab leak, but you need to look at all the information inconsistent with a lab leak as well. It did not help that many lab leak theories were so wild that they undermined the position as a whole. Senorangel (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

NYT: COVID origin

Thread retitled from "NYT: COVID probably started in lab". WP:TALKHEADPOV

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/opinion/covid-lab-leak.html

I think its about time that this article gets some important updates. Jdftba (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:RSOPINION. TarnishedPathtalk 07:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
It's just Alina Chan trotting out all the LL talking points again. Relevant scientists are not impressed (e.g.[13]) and of course it's not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Bon courage (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry who's Ben Pierce? 1000 follows on X and PhD in Chemistry from the University of North Carolina is "relevant"? Thesmallfriendlygiant (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Another virologist chipped in [14] - DFlhb (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Well their twitter isn’t soaked in partisanship at all! I don’t even see any charged language across any of their posts. They seem very cool headed and incredibly trustworthy due to their calm calculated demeanor 2601:18F:801:1D20:D8DF:FA6C:D2F7:58CA (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Alina Chan's preprint on this has not been accepted for publication by any scientific journal. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Do You care to write here all errors/lies/incorrect facts in her NYT ariticle. It is so easy to eliminate someone without any fact. Disgusting. 95.168.105.14 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
That would be OR, we go by what the majority of the sources say, and not just one. Also we go by the best sources (I.E. ones published in peer reviewed journals). Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
As a frequent reader of these talk pages in Wikipedia I can see the slow trend of this talk page slowly turning into the talk page for the duke lacrosse case. Another talk page where it was like pulling teeth.
this is fun though I’ll check back in a few weeks and see how the discussion is going. 2601:18F:801:1D20:D8DF:FA6C:D2F7:58CA (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

From this wiki article's lead: "Most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis..." There is not one qualified scientist who believes this. Not one. Thus I know you don't have the survey data to establish such a statement.--2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:B5DB:E109:BA25:EE59 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you even know any scientists? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
A survey like this one? Gary Ackerman, Brandon Behlendorf, Seth Baum,Hayley Peterson, Anna Wetzel & John Halstead (February 2024). The Origin and Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic An Expert Survey (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Mr leroy playpus (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Since it is an article about the lab leak theory, it is not logical to state almost everything in the negative, opposing this theory. For example, instead of "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis" in the opening paragraph, it would be more logical and objective for that to say something like "while most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis, 1 in 5 experts surveyed reported a 50% or greater a lab leak being the cause." The source of that is the one you just gave, https://gcrinstitute.org/covid-origin/ which gives the link to the main report: https://gcrinstitute.org/papers/069_covid-origin.pdf which states "Overall, one out of five experts reported a 50% or greater chance for an origin other than natural zoonosis." That language sounds softer than it is - the graphic clearly shows 32/168 respondents (just over 19%) giving this belief for "Research-related accident more likely". I.e. lab leak. In fact I think the continual repetition of 'most scientists believe...' should be erased. If this is the only actual survey on this, then the statement should rather read something like 'According to a survey published in February 2024 of 168 experts from around the world in relevant scientific fields, one in 5 reported a 50% or greater chance for the COVID-19 pandemic having originating from a lab leak.' 86.23.186.222 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I hear what you say about phrasing things in the negative. But I think the trouble with saying, "...[20% of] experts reported a 50% or greater chance for an origin other than natural zoonosis," apart from it being very hard for a reader to parse, is that placing this phrasing in the lede would really give undue weight to a single survey. After all, the survey supports the statement that "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis." I guess it could, maybe, be placed somewhere under "Proposed scenarios," but the scholarly sources still overwhelming seem to favor a "natural zoonosis" (inasmuch as contact with an animal at a market is "natural"). Rather than trying to square two independent ways of identifying a scientific consensus, surveys would probably be better placed in the context of a discussion about the development a scientific consensus (as in Scientific consensus on climate change), if this particular issue lives long enough to produce such a thing. Mr leroy playpus (talk) Mr leroy playpus (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Based on this survey, it seems like it would be more accurate to say that most scientists believe a natural zoonotic origin is more likely than a lab leak, but that a lab leak origin is possible, while a significant minority believes the lab leak origin is more likely. Dustinscottc (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that news sources and some editors here seem to think that "natural zoonosis" and "lab leak" are mutually exclusive. They aren't. You can have a 'natural zoonosis' event that happens in a lab. We know that this corona virus originated in bats and we also know that (despite the official denial) that the WIV had a colony of living bats at the institute and they also had the closest related virus in their collection. Saying that scientist belive that it was "natural zoonosis" and implying that this is evidence against a lab leak is disingenuous and has been the entire time that the media was using this line all through the pandemic (mostly through them not understanding either.
When they say that it came from zoonosis, that opinion is only against the 'engineered' theory (which is also probably true but not relevant to my point). It can come from bat->human tratransmission and ALSO come from the WIV lab. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The survey used different definitions than you are. [15] says "natural zoonosis" is "an event in which a non-human animal infected a human, and in which the infection did not occur in the course of any form of virological or biomedical research". You can see the exact question on page 15 of [16] which makes clear that their definition of natural zoonosis doesn't include "the accidental infection of a laboratory worker with a natural coronavirus; the accidental infection of researchers with a natural coronavirus during biomedical fieldwork; or the accidental infection of a laboratory worker with an engineered coronavirus". I'd suggest because of that you retract your claim that people are being disingenous when reporting this survey's results. JaggedHamster (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
JaggedHamster is correct that the survey is careful about defining what is meant by "natural zoonosis" (in contrast to a "lab leak" or "research-related-incident"). But, also, this thread is about the lede (see 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:B5DB:E109:BA25:EE59's contribution above) rather than whether "[some] news sources and some editors here seem to think that "natural zoonosis" and "lab leak" are mutually exclusive." I agree that "natural zoonosis" is a sloppy phrase, particularly given that wildlife farms had been promoted as a means of poverty alleviation (see Kormann, Carolyn (October 12, 2021). "The Mysterious Case of the COVID-19 Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker.); there's nothing particularly "natural" about a spillover that was a foreseeable output of a particular policy. Keeping on topic, though, it might be better said in the lede that " most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis [via the live animal trade] "... Thoughts? Mr leroy playpus (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The point was probably that the initial infection came directly from a natural as opposed to artificial source, even though at the policy level, it is difficult to say what is or is not natural. Senorangel (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Paul Offit destroys the NYT piece: [17] --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Assertion regarding racism is unsupported

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

The source appears to be an opinion piece that discusses allegations of racism from proponents of the lab leak theory against proponents of the wet-market theory, but both those statements and the authors response are only opinion. Nothing in the source points to data or even anecdote demonstrating a connection between acts of racism or racist sentiments and the lab leak theory. Dustinscottc (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m in favor of removing references to “racism”. Seems speculative at best. 2601:18F:801:1D20:D8DF:FA6C:D2F7:58CA (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Please refer to the archives for previous discussions on this. TarnishedPathtalk 02:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, you have to truly REACH to find even passive references to racism by any writer who isn't already utterly programmed to see everything through the lens of race. AKA race-grifters. 24.63.3.107 (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Massive anti-Asian incidents related to this subject, what Trump has repeatedly called the Asian flu, are well documented. Please do not use the term "race-grifters" here again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm in favor of keeping references to "racism." Xenophobic language and anti-Chinese racism were well-documented and the links between these and the lab leak theory were the subject of much public discussion. I would think that the use of the phrase "Kung Flu" and this, this, and etc would be enough supporting evidence for the claim that politicians made unwholesome use of the lab leak theory, but for two more randomly chosen examples, see, Eric Feigl-Ding, Yuh-Line Niou, and Victor Shi (May 24, 2023). "Stopping Asian American Hate Stemming From the COVID-19 Pandemic - Opinion". Newsweek.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) or Liu, Andrew (2022). "Lab-Leak Theory and the "Asiatic" Form". N+1. Mr leroy playpus (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The opinion that racism was a significant factor is based on circular logic that implies that favoring LL theory is racist because the only reason to favor LL is racism. 2601:547:1903:2200:8BD:A430:2848:DE54 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
No, its weaponisation is. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Lancet Microbe

Has a new editorial:

The idea that SARS-CoV-2 is of unnatrual origin is "simply wrong" it says (among other things). Could usefully be used to update our article to get with the current science ... Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The author of this opinion screed is not a scientist, does not have a PhD, and has no research publications in the field. So no, its not useful for updating this article that is already very biased towards the natural origin theory. 120.29.78.126 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Screed? The Lancet is a 200 year old peer-reviewed journal published by Elsevier, a highly respected academic publisher. This fits our bias towards reliable secondary sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The little known Lancet Microbe is not the Lancet and the author of this opinion piece has no scientific credentials or publications to his name. It is not a reliable source for the "simply wrong" claim. 112.198.120.195 (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Err, is this trolling? The Lancet Microbe has an impact factor over 20[18] and is an Index Medicus publication. Scopus ranks it 3rd (of 80) infection disease journals on the planet. The editorial has not a single 'author' but is ascribed to the entire editorial board. So it is hard to imagine a more authoritative and prestigious source for use on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from casting aspersions and stay civil. Lancet Microbe is relatively new journal, making its impact factor less significant, and it does not have an editorial "board". This piece was authored by its editor in chief Onisillos Sekkides, who disclosed it on his Twitter. As an editorial, the piece is suitable for statements attributed to that editor or author, but not for a statement of fact like calling the lab leak theory "simply wrong". 120.29.78.126 (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The piece is literally signed by "The Lancet Microbe". Such editorials are strong WP:MEDRS and excellent secondary sources. In judging sources Wikipedia follows reliable assessments (as from Scopus), not the ignorant ones from random editors. Bon courage (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies are very clear on how editorials may be used as sources and what they are (and are not) reliable for. Please stay civil and refrain from calling other editors ignorant. 124.104.164.12 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024

The information posted on Wikipedia about the origin of Covid 19 is incorrect and outdated and therefore should be updated. Please see below: https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/ 2601:643:282:90A0:6DCC:6606:9DCF:D8F2 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. House committee transcripts are WP:PRIMARY. In addition, on this topic politicians often disagree with top quality academic scholarship such as review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses in MEDLINE-indexed journals. In a situation like this, we go with the top quality academic scholarship, and not the politicians. WP:MEDRS, WP:NOLABLEAK. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a notice at the top of this page clearly stating that Covid origins are not BMI. It's surprising how often senior editors need to be reminded of this. - Palpable (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
There is? As far as I can see it says there is no consensus on this one way or the other, but this is still primary source, and does not in fact Trump other sources. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS applies to WP:BMI, but not to WP:NOTBMI. That is the position, and it has never been otherwise for this topic (or any other). Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
OK, but what is the claim it does not apply to covid origins true, if it contradicts what BMI's say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
From the notice: There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS.
You cannot use MEDRS to dismiss the investigations of the House, Senate, and Intelligence Community, and again it's really surprising how often editors here seem to forget that. I'm just posting a helpful reminder. - Palpable (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Err, nor can we use it to overturn BMI claims, that is the point. We can say they have said it, not that its a fact. Which we in fact do. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
In any case this bonkers political theatre from the US is really irrelevant to a serious article except infsofar as rational sources comment on it - which they do.[19] Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Nobody is talking about overturning BMI claims.
There is no overturning because nobody is suggesting that the Worobey etc. papers not be cited, just that the results (such as they are) of the investigations are also DUE. Other Wikipedia articles seem to be able to handle disagreement between sources just fine.
And there are no BMI claims because, again, there is consensus that origins are not BMI.
- Palpable (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
"The information posted on Wikipedia about the origin of Covid 19 is incorrect and outdated and therefore should be updated.", yes the OP wants us to say this is a fact. And we do mention the reports findings. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to have any coverage of the House and Senate hearings from 2024, that does seem outdated to me. Many of them were focused on the DEFUSE proposal which also barely gets a mention.
I can see why people have given up trying to update the article. - Palpable (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The OPs source is from 2023. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that the source is from 2023, or that its not even a good source. The rejection reason given by Novem Linguae was that politicians are at odds with the science. That is not true. 120.29.78.126 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
It does if the claim this is a report form 2024. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
That is not true That is a really crazy claim. Lots of politicians, especially American ones, are climate change deniers, creationists and/or COVID deniers. Even if that were not so, politicians are obviously never a reliable source on science. It is not their field of expertise, and Wikipedia prefers sources with the right field of expertise. Duh. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not at odds with the science to call for investigations into the lab leak theory. Numerous scientists and scientific organizations support this stance, including the WHO. 120.29.78.126 (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The link text explicitly contains the words science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak. That is at odds with science. Do not move the goalposts by pretending it is about something else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps I made a mistake by mentioning MEDRS. The main idea I wanted to convey is that top academic sources pretty much always outrank all other sources. And we have an abundance of top academic sources on this topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Correct, Also, all other sources pretty much always outrank groups of American politicians. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support creation of a new U.S. Congressional Hearings subsection in the Political, academic and media attention section about the numerous meetings in the Senate and House referencing all the reports from reliable sources on the subject. There are more than enough such reports in reliable news covering many aspects of origin investigations. 120.29.78.126 (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    That's just politicians trying to score political points. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    You can include that claim if supported by reliable sources. A total of 7 congressional hearings were held, with Dr. Fauci participating in 5 of them, and all were covered by reliable sources. These hearings addressed alleged NIH funding of gain-of-function at the Wuhan lab and the possibility of an accidental release, making them highly relevant to this article. 112.198.120.195 (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Two sides, one shouting insults, accusations, and conspiracy theories at those testifying; and the other shouting insults and accusations at the other side. There have been many congressional hearings broadcast lately with innumerable false claims that are just political talking points. Let us stick with reliable, medical sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Note: A subsection was previously added by @ThomasMikael and later removed entirely by @Slatersteven [20]. As @Palpable mentioned, reverting and deleting good faith contributions in this manner can discourage valuable community contributions. It would have been better to revise the text and add more references. 112.198.120.195 (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    IMO, the removal was necessary. One can also learn by being reverted. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

New Journal of Virology commentary

New piece, which is interesting for contextualizing lab leak as part of the anti-science movement. It also addresses the Alina Chan newspaper article others have mentioned.

  • Alwine J, Goodrum F, Banfield B, Bloom D, Britt WJ, et al. (August 2024). "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence". J Virol: e0124024. doi:10.1128/jvi.01240-24. PMID 39087765.

Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Way too much time has already been spent in this article about the conspiracy and pseudoscience aspects of the lab leak theory. It doesn't really need anymore of that. What this article needs is updated information regarding the 2023 report by the US department of Energy indicating their research concludes that the virus did in fact come from a lab. This is by all means a credible source, and it's not even mentioned in the heading. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Err, it's 2024 now and things have moved on. There is some recent coverage here[21] which explains how the DoE stuff was mis-reported as part of the political circus. Your suggestion (that "their research concludes that the virus did in fact come from a lab") mirrors the misinformation of the time. Bon courage (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Err, Things have not moved on. There hasn't been any major revelations that discredit the DOE's research and at the very least it should still be mentioned as many of the other sources are even older. According to the DOE: “The Department of Energy continues to support the thorough, careful, and objective work of our intelligence professionals in investigating the origins of COVID-19, as the President directed.” So you're saying this is all one big conspiracy by the Biden administration? It seems to me like you're the conspiracy theorist here if that's the case.SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
There have been some superb sources published. And Wikipedia follows sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
As I've said several times, the DOE report is a very credible source and Wikipedia articles should state opposing positions on the subject matter and a source as important as this should be be in the head like countless other sources are already. Wikipedia's foundation is a neutral point of view, not one point of view as it currently represents. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, so we're not going to over-inflate a minor piece of the puzzle by misinterpreting one agency's tentative view from 2023. That would be WP:PROFRINGE. Bon courage (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Simply mentioning the study in the head is not "overinflating an agencies point of view". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an opinion piece. It seems to me you're the only one with an agenda here and you want this article to fit your agenda. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Please read the message on your User Talk page carefully. Bon courage (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Do be clear, Bon courage is threatening you with a ban. 2600:8804:6600:4:2DD3:9EA8:D3AB:A6F5 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Discus content, not users. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

New SBM source

A useful up-to-date overview of the state of things. From this, we are fast approaching (maybe past?) the point where this article needs to be renamed "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory". Bon courage (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Indeed it does, but it's probably Wikipedia's duty to report that the horse is dead. For NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Thats not what I mean't. You are beating a dead horse. This section should not have been opened, especially based on an editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
In fact a WP:GREL source, especially for fringe topics such as this. See WP:SBM. Wikipedia moves on when the sourcing moves on. Dead horses don't move on. Bon courage (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
What does that have to do with it being an editorial? Its clearly written as opinion, yes its expert opinion but its making no attempt at impartiality its arguing a POV (sceptical movement). The horse is dead, you are welcome to continue the beating. I will be elsewhere doing something constructive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
You've made this mistake before, and been corrected. If you want to overturn the community consensus on what a reliable source is for scientific knowledge, you'll need to attempt it elsewhere. Bon courage (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
It is not civil or collegial to make overly personal comments after an editor has said they are leaving a discussion to force them to continue to comment. Good day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Why shouldn't this section have been opened? Points to "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence" in first paragraph, already looks very useful. We can beat up on BC when he cites Gorski in preference to our 40 authors in Journal of Virology. fiveby(zero) 20:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence" is also commentary. That is besides the point that they don't actually seem to call it a conspiracy theory, the call it the "lab leak theory" or "lab leak hypothesis" so while we could cite Gorski for that we can't cite "our 40 authors in Journal of Virology" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
You seemingly think everything is commentary opinion and nothing is knowledge (even opioids causing constipation IIRC). It's a bizarre, wrong view which is of no use to us here. I suggest it's ignored and we stick to the WP:PAGs. We should certainly cite "our 40 authors in Journal of Virology" - I opened a section on just that source above. Bon courage (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC); change 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Its published in the commentary section... Its labeled commentary... The four sections of the piece are "abstract," "commentary," "acknowledgments," and "references." The section above is called "New Journal of Virology commentary" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I mean 'opinion' not 'commentary' per youc comments before.[22] The crucial thing is NPOV applies: these secondary sources by experts on a topic a rich sources of knowledge which needs to be asserted if it's not seriously contested (these pieces will contain some opinion too). The non-need to attribute SBM, in general, has already been discussed on this very Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Thats not in NPOV... And these are not secondary sources for wikipedia purposes... NPOV builds on V, and V has WP:RSEDITORIAL... Which says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
If if were true this entire article and most of Wikipedia would need to be re-written. You say it's not NPOV but in fact YESPOV requires: "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested". In academic publishing editorials are often a rich source of knowledge which Wikipedia must assert (and probably some opinion too!). NPOV is not negotiable. WP:RSEDITORIAL is for the material from news organizations, so irrelevant here. Newspaper editorials and scholarly publishing editorials are rather different things. Bon courage (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
If you want to propose a re-write of V you can, but not here. SBM is a news organization, not a scholarly publishing house and we treat opinion pieces in scientific journals the same as news ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Err, it's not a "news organization" and the community has already considered it many times: see WP:SBM. Scientific journals seldom have 'opinion pieces', their commentaries and editorials are often golden secondary sources packed with knowledge we can (and do) happily assert - just as with WP:SBM. You've been told this before[23] but somehow keep popping up to bludgeon discussions with the same fundamentally mistaken understanding of NPOV and source types. As was said (not by me): "Gorski is not an opinion piece, and is WP:GREL. This is clearly supported by WP:RSPSOURCES and the RSN discussions it links". Bon courage (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Commentaries and editorials are types of opinion piece. If its not a journal and its not a scientific news organization, what is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It's a society's publication online (the New England Skeptical Society to be precise, a rational-scientific organization). Society publications are common in academia, in the olden days they were often journals.
Commentaries and editorials can have an opinion element, but often contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas – which make them secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The New England Skeptical Society is not an academic or professional society, unless I'm missing something it is not within academia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not a "news organisation". Whether it's "in academia" is an academic question. For our purposes we know it's WP:GREL and that's what matters for the purposes of writing encyclopedic content. Bon courage (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and we know how to handle editorials in GREL sources. The only one arguing against how we do things is you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
By directly asserting anything that's not seriously contested, as NPOV requires. We do it here, we do it throughout Wikipedia. You keep bludgeoning Talk pages with your odd views but it seems you never actually edit articles to follow through with article edits to match. This means the only effect of these arguments is to clog up the Talk page, as here. Forgive me if I now ignore. Bon courage (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Again this level of personalization is neither civil or collegial. Even on the personal level I have a slighly higher percentage of mainspace edits than you do (and we have roughly the same amount of total edits) and when it comes to actual article creations I have almost an order of magnitude more than you do so your blanket criticism of my editing practices is unfounded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Scientific journals seldom have 'opinion pieces', their commentaries and editorials are often golden secondary sources packed with knowledge → this is patently false. Commentaries and editorials are not of the same quality as peer reviewed research, and should be not be treated as such. 103.164.118.54 (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Nah, Wikipedia doesn't cite "research" but uses WP:SECONDARY sources, especially for sci/med. A random example of a good editorial would be something like this[24] for a roundup on Dengue fever. If in doubt check at WT:MED where tis is raised from time-to-time. Bon courage (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
That source, like the drivel from Gorski that you cited above, is an editorial and has limitations on its use. We cannot use an editorial to support your POV that the lab leak theory is a racist conspiracy theory when we have much more qualified experts and organisations who say otherwise. 203.176.178.251 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the sourcing aligns more on saying it is/was fuelled by racism and xenophobia (both anti-Chinese and anti-American depending on which flavour of conspiracy you pick). This is somewhat covered in the article already. There is actually quite a bit of actual research on this topic too, for example doi:10.1177/21533687221125818. Bon courage (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
And again the ASM piece does not support "this article needs to be renamed "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory"" so not sure why we're quibbling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
SBM does refer to the "scientific hypothesis turned conspiracy theory known as lab leak". Bon courage (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
So you wish to cite Gorski in preference to our 40 authors in Journal of Virology? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
No, but maybe alongside. Bon courage (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
But they don't support the assertion that "this article needs to be renamed "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory"" so how can they be cited alongside Gorski to support that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
They don't directly comment on whether the hypothesis is a conspiracy theory or not. For that, we need sources that consider that aspect of things. The point is, the sourcing is shifting and while there is moratorium on page move requests (i.e. renaming) unit 5 March 2024, it is only something that can be noted and not actioned. Let's see where we end up next Spring! Bon courage (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC); 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Then using them alongside would be a WP:SYNTH issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Only if something is synthesized. SBM expands upon (not contradicts) the other sources it cites, and Wikipedia can follow .... Bon courage (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Citing both a source and one which explains it for the same bit of info which can not be independently verified from the first source would be synth, in that situation you could only cite the second source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
All SBM articles, except the satirical ones, are pretty much the same. There is no distinction "this is an editorial or commentary, and this is not". Therefore, the WP:SBM decision applies to this article, and this discussion is unnecessary. SBM is a good source, period. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
What is the distinction they make for the satirical ones? I've never seen a satire section on the site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
[25] --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Fascinating... So they do actually have a satire category[26], they just don't put the vast majority of the satire in it. Are you aware that they have a commentary category[27] in which they don't put the vast majority of their commentary? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I will not use this page as a forum. If you think SBM is not reliable, this is the wrong page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
What makes you think this is an Editorial HEB? All I see is fact based reporting on a recently published expert position statement from many multiple virologists. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_34&oldid=1249975903"