Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:03, 3 February 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wuhan Institute of Virology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 7 days

|topic= not specified. Available options:

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Molecular Biology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. COVID-19 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in China may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2021

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

In section "COVID-19 pandemic"

please change

"Early in the pandemic a number of myths and conspiracy theories had circulated, among them that the virus has been constructed in a Wuhan laboratory. Subsequent genetic analysis of the virus laid these to rest, finding that the virus had originated in bats."

to

"A number of theories on the origin of the virus have been proposed, among these that the virus originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The institute has a published record of conducting "gain-of-function" experiments aimed at creating new, more virulent, or more infectious strains of diseases in an effort to predict and therefore defend against threats that might conceivably arise in nature. Many scientists argue experiments using this gain-of-function technique on samples from the institutes own coronavirus collection could have led to the creation of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)."

reliable sources to back up information: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/ewsu2giezk/city-of-silence-china-wuhan 2A00:23C5:F013:7900:A15B:F04C:EF66:DB8F (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Declined See the above talk page discussion and archives for why. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory claims

Some content in this article remains problematic. In the History section we have this statement "The laboratory has nevertheless been the subject of multiple conspiracy theories, widely rejected by the scientific community, about the origin of the virus.". The sources 8 and 9 do not mention conspiracy theories at all, so they appear not to support the assertion. The third source is written by reporters from a US radio station. It does have a paragraph about conspiracy theories, but "multiple conspiracy theories, widely rejected by the scientific community" is not supported. I propose the sentence is removed. Arcturus (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree those sources don't support it, but multiple sources in the kludge of a discussion above do iirc, so the sources can be swapped out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, there is no consensus above on any sources supporting the assertion. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

That some editors choose to be vocal about their viewpoint doesn’t mean they are the consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is still a matter of investigation and the text should say "numerous theories..." indicating the current scientific view, but without calling minority views conspiracy theory myths. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS again

This edit (repeated by ScrupulousScribe) splices a suggestive non-sequitur into the middle of a paragraph and edits text text to misrepresent a MEDRS source, which does not say the bat origin is "most likely", but that it is the case. Editors are reminded that WP:V is a core content policy, that WP:SYNTHESIS is prohibited and that this topic is subject to special sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus above that WP:MEDRS is applicable for a matter unrelated to Misplaced Pages:Biomedical information, and there is also no consensus on that particular MEDRS source being WP:BESTSOURCE, given the way it contradicts other sources. It is clear that Jshin47 is a new user, and we should be welcoming to him, and any other editors who wish to offer a more nuanced point of view. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, WP:V is a core policy. There is in fact consensus that WP:MEDRS applies, but even it it didn't an academic peer-reviewed secondary source is still supreme in comparison to lay sources and tweets. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus that MEDRS applies. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, think we should use high-quality scientific sources (for this subject, that would be WP:MEDRS sources) for scientific claims, such as the origins of SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And there are others, such as I, who believe that while MEDRS should normally apply, the Chinese government has made it as such that there are no MEDRS sources to determine the origin of the virus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, and WP:CLUE is relevant. If we allowed every outbreak of WP:PROFRINGE grutching to unseat established WP:PAGs, Misplaced Pages would descend into nonsense. If in doubt, double check at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Something that the BBC calls the "biggest scientific controversy of our time" (not a WP:PROFRINGE grutch) should require a much clearer approach for establishing how WP:PAG applies here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We use serious sources, not silly hyperbolic journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Even generally-decent mainstream journalism is prone to false balance about scientific controversies — quoting one person from each side of a debate, or quoting people in such a way that they appear to be two sides of a debate, when in fact their views are only separated incrementally. On some topics, mainstream journalism is the best source material we have to work with and so we can't say much anything about whether the balance is false, but that's not the case here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The BBC is a decent mainstream reliable source, right? They have covered the issue, as have The Times, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and many others. For as long as editors like you and Alexbrn continue to conflate legitimate scientific inquiry, as reported by the likes of BBC, with disproven conspiracy theories, as promulgated by the likes of Li-Meng Yan, this issue remains disputed. There is most certainly not a consensus in favor of continuing to conflate the issues, and omit key details about such inquiry from the article, as it currently does. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Weren't you just recently topic-banned (and then unbanned) from Covid? I'd suggest the issue be handled with care. Fact is, those theories are considered by MEDRS and high quality sources (WP:BESTSOURCES - its not simply because something is "reliable" that its an ok source: if better sources contradict lesser ones (and scientific journals vs mainstream press is the prime example) then we go by the best available sources). In this case, there is no serious MEDRS-level source which claims that those conspiracy theories have any grounding in anything but thin air, therefore we report what the best sources say, so no, the conspiracy bullshit does not go in. I've removed the tag since its an issue which was just discussed (and has been perpetually discussed) earlier with consensus that the current content was way too much and you re-inserting it feels a bit like WP:DEADHORSE... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

As was pointed out by myself and others, the scientific journal (MEDRS source) does not contradict the mainstream reliable sources, and addresses only known conspiracy theories (relating to bioweapons). There was also no agreement in the above discussion that that journal is WP:BESTSOURCES, specifically because it failed to address any alternative lab origin theory other than bioweapons. And since you are new to the conversation, let me also remind you that there is also no consensus that MEDRS even applies to something that clearly does not classify as Misplaced Pages:Biomedical information. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if MEDRS wasn't required for this article, applicable MEDR sources would still be better than MEDPOP. In this situation, we have a hypothesis (lab leak) that has been cultivated primarily by laypeople, with the opinions of a handful of scientists (of varying credentials) thrown in to provide (seemingly) mechanistic legitimacy. We don't need MEDRS to describe entirely layperson-designed scenarios, which don't include scientific assertions. But as soon as you introduce an "expert" analysis that attempts to explain how the scenario could have occurred, you need rigorous MEDRS to rebut (or support) the claim. And when a particular mechanistic claim does not have abundant MEDRS, it is not DUE: it is clearly disregarded by the scientific community and therefore should be omitted from the article. So, while the "lab leak theory" as a general concept may be acknowledged here, any supporting details inspired by a hypothetical mechanism cannot be included. This would of course include the opinions of random scientists. JoelleJay (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay, If I understand you correctly, you consider "supporting details" of the theory to be WP:UNDUE, especially when it makes a mechanistic claim. However, I would like to understand whether you would make any differentiation between the claim that COVID-19 was possibly created as a bioweapon, to the claim that it was possibly subject to gain-of-function research? That's like me asking whether you think we should merge the Biological warfare article into Gain of function research article, or visa versa, as a dual-use section, and I would expect a pretty clear answer. Also, I do not think Marc Lipsitch, David Relman and Richard Ebright are "random scientists", and they are of the opinion that the theory should be considered and the possibility investigated. Just yesterday Forbes published an interesting piece on the subject of this differentiation, quoting Ebright (and also Filippa Lentzos). Most reliable sources make the differentiation. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant "supporting details" for the accidental lab leak hypothesis, not for distinguishing it from the intentional release scenario which is entirely separate and discounted. It doesn't matter whether I personally make a distinction between bioweapons research and GOF DURCs; the possibility that WIV was engaged in either with this virus is not being entertained enough by the scientific community to be DUE at this time. That the popular media has picked up on the topic is unfortunate but unsurprising, given the hyperbole generated by the 2011 pause on funding. Having a handful of scientists whose statements can be aligned with alarmist news reports doesn't mean the scenario has gained widespread acknowledgement among the thousands of other experts, whose relative silence on the matter carries far more weight. If we went by what experts quoted in the lay media say, our articles on TCM and AYUSH therapies would be full of nationalist woo bullshit. JoelleJay (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If we want to use non-WP:MEDRS to discuss the gain-of-function conspiracy theory, a useful source may be PMID 33442004, which is some commentary by Angela Rasmussen on the "often contradictory and sometimes outright ridiculous conspiracy theories that spread faster than the virus itself". This is already used at the Gain-of-function article. Excerpt:

A favorite version of the laboratory-origin stories relies on the fact that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered for gain-of-function studies that were also previously performed with bat SARS-like coronaviruses to understand cross-species transmission risk (Nat. Med. 21, 1508–1513; 2015). The irony is that those gain-of-function studies provided valuable information about the biology of SARS-CoV-2. Gain-of-function research is also subject to intense scrutiny and governmental oversight, precisely because of the high risk involved in conducting it safely; thus, it is extremely unlikely that gain-of-function research on hard-to-obtain coronaviruses (such as bat SARS-like coronaviruses) could occur under the radar.

This doesn't make any biomedical claims, but also does not mention the Wuhan lab specifically. Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

break

One point here keeps getting repeated, and is wrong. The best MEDRS does not "just" rebut the "bioweapon" claim, but lab construction in general ("conspiracy theories regarding the construction of SARS-CoV-2 in a secret laboratory in Wuhan") without even mentioning bioweapons. Alexbrn (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that is based on your interpretation of it. And also, it is not the "best" MEDRS, as you claim. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No intepretation, a direct quotation. As a MEDLINE-indexed, reputable-published, review article, PMID 32945405 is the best MEDRS (on this topic). As it says: "The genomic and bioinformatic analyses of the aforementioned studies, as well as the results of previous studies, confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue". Alexbrn (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The paper you selected, and the comment you selected from it, does not discount other lab origin scenarios, particularly the one relating to gain-of-function research. It is irrelevant to the subject at hand, and making any inference from it in relation to lab origin scenario involving GoF research, is original research. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What part of "confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue" is hard to understand? No inference necessary; to the contrary, interpreting this to mean in some way "it was maybe made in a lab!" requires interpretative contortions. Alexbrn (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Its not hard to understand, but no one said the virus didn't originate in bats. This was pointed out by other editors above, such as Forich, as it is pretty clear the paper doesn't make the necessary differentiation. It would be better for you to leave this discussion to other editors like JoelleJay, who seems to have a better grasp of the science than you do, so that we can reach a consensus and agree on content changes. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice attempt at WP:OWNERSHIP. As Forich wrote (15 Jan): "we have to follow Misplaced Pages rules, and it looks like a strong MEDRS against the lab leak". I agree with that. Misplaced Pages's purpose is to reflect reliable, relevant sources. We also know from RS that the gain-of-function "story" is a favourite one among the conspiracy theorists. Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not ownership. You have taken up considerable time to push your POV, and JoelleJay, who shares your POV, makes stronger and more direct points that I feel would enable us to reach a consensus. If you are going to quote Forich, you should also include his others on the matter, such as his "benevolent interpretation" comment (also Jan 15). Your MEDRS source is irrelevant for the reason given, and the applicability of MEDRS is also in question. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but threatening "It would be better for you to leave this discussion to other editors" is classic WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. WP:FOC. The business of editing Misplaced Pages is fundamentally quite simple: find the best sources, then summarize them. We're doing that with the lab leak and all the best sources are aligned: it's a remote possibility & conspiracy theory. When and if the sources change, Misplaced Pages can follow, but until then we're sound. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't have gatekeepers and you are not in charge of determining what sources are considered best, and which policies apply where and when. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Gatekeepers? I didn't write "It would be better for you to leave this discussion to other editors". Misplaced Pages policies apply throughout the project, unless you want to invoke WP:IAR. But some policies are non-negotiable, such as WP:NPOV. There was already a lengthy process on this Talk page of finding the five or six WP:BESTSOURCES on the virus' origin. If we stick to summarizing those, NPOV will be safe. Alexbrn (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The lengthy process you mention above did not result in a consensus, as you did not address the concerns brought up by editors (like Forich) with the sources you selected, just like you didn't reply to Forich's debate conclusions in WP:RS/N. Unless you find a MEDRS source that makes the clear distinction between origin theories relating to gain of function research and bioweapons, and rules them both out unequivocally, then MEDRS as a policy isn't even applicable here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to find a MEDRS source to address concerns that don't exist in the realm of MEDRS, but in the realms of WP:FRINGE. I'm not making any claim beyond the sources we already use. All that's necessary is to reflect WP:MEDRS and uphold WP:FRINGE when discussing conspiracy theories, or even plausible but unaccepted ideas. Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to continue deleting contributions as you did with the contributions from Jshin47 and Aettius, then as per WP:REMOVE, you must provide reasons for doing so. You could have just fixed the problem, as per WP:PRESERVE, by adding the sources. If you believe that MEDRS applies here, then you need to find a MEDRS source to support your position, and gain consensus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I gave edit summaries. The core problem is with NPOV, and the way to "fix" undue airing of fringe theories is to remove them from the encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn that removing NPOV violations is often a valid way of dealing with them. WP:PRESERVE does not mean that all material ever added to the encyclopedia has to stay. Alexbrn has been doing a lot of work to find applicable MEDRS-compliant sources, so I don't see how you can fault them there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Guest2625: Do you think this material should be reinstated, from your recent removal of material? It's a statement of fact, sourced, and tangentially relevant to WIV.

In January 2021, a WHO team went to Wuhan to investigate the origins of the virus. The WHO tweeted that "all hypotheses are on the table as the team follows the science in their work to understand the origins of the COVID19 virus." Arcturus (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

1. ^ "WHO team in Wuhan departs quarantine for COVID origins study". Associated Press. Retrieved 28 January 2021.

Note. This text is from the source and could be added to the deleted section I mentioned above: WHO, which is based in Geneva, Switzerland, said late Thursday on Twitter that its team plans to visit hospitals, markets like the Huanan Seafood Market linked to many of the first cases, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and laboratories at facilities like the Wuhan Center for Disease Control. Arcturus (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"All hypotheses"? Which means what? Bat virus, bat virus via pangolin, lab-leaked bat virus, bioweapon by China, bioweapon by US, bioweapon by Liechtenstein, virus by 5G, virus by unicorn snot, virus by Daleks, virus by grey goo made by Greys, and so on? Tweets have that character-limit problem, which can lead to ambivalence, and they should not be used when it does.

This has been gone long enough. There has been no working argument for treating the lab leak idea as reasonable, there has only repetion, strawmen, repetition, and repetition. Drop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, twitter is not good. We should use a source like this instead . It has this statement; WHO said the 13-person team will meet Covid-19 survivors, visit the seafood market linked to the early outbreak and the spend time at the Wuhan Institute of Virology - which is at the heart of theories that Sars-Cov-2 escaped from a lab. The WHO is visiting the lab in connection with its attempts to identify the origins of this pandemic, and you don't think that fact deserves a mention in an article about the lab? Extraordinary. Arcturus (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Has the WHO said that the purpose of the visit to the lab is to investigate the lab leak theory? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Not according to the source I've identified. I don't know if it's mentioned elsewhere. Arcturus (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The whole thing is ridiculous, as if, even imagining there was some kind of State-ordered cover up, if would be busted by a no-doubt mild-mannered team of WHO scientists ("did the virus come from this lab?" / "no" / "oh, okay then"). Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You could be right, but that doesn't matter. We should just follow the sources. If a RS like The Telegraph reports that the WHO team are visiting the Institute to investigate the origins of Sars-Cov-2, then that is highly relevant in an article about the Institute. Arcturus (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If the WHO doesn't say it's visiting the lab to investigate the lab-leak theory, then we shouldn't in any way imply that it is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

We say what the source says. Readers can then make up their own minds. Arcturus (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If we put in text that implies the WHO team is visiting the WIV in order to investigate the lab-leak theory, then that's misleading. We should allow the reader to make up their mind, but that doesn't mean we should imply something that isn't true (or which the WHO hasn't stated). -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"All theories are on the table" is so vague as to indicate ineptness from whoever is managing the WHO social media. In any case, it does not indicate anything about which "theories" these might be. Simply because WHO might be visiting the lab does not imply they are investigating it as a possible origin (linking the mentions together as to imply it is clearly WP:SYNTH) - as far as we know, they might simply be visiting the lab to get up-to-date information from the local virologists (a far more benign aim, no? In any case, neither of these two hypotheses go in because they are not found in any WP:RS). Re-inserting the NPOV tag despite this discussion having just been had and resolved (and then starting yet another one on the same subject) shows an unwilligness to move on. Because the outcome is not what you want does not mean the discussion needs to be repeated fifty times until the desired outcome is attained. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not synthesis if the link is done by the source. Nevertheless, I suggest we include the following statement, sourced to The Telegraph; As part of their investigations into the origin of Sars-Cov-2, an investigation team from the WHO will visit the Institute. The text can be edited and modified accordingly, when the visit is complete. This simply states a (highly relevant) fact and draws no conclusions as to the purpose of the visit. Arcturus (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to weigh in a bit. About a year ago we were having this discussion because there was a preprint on BioRxiv from pretty serious researchers stating the lab leak hypothesis should be considered. It was rejected because It's a preprint and not MEDRS. All my claims were dismissed as being fringe and therefore no change was made regarding the "conspiracy theory" language used. It's been a year now and I'm pretty concerned to see it didn't move an inch, even with the BBC, the Bulletin of Atomic scientists, credible scientists now saying it's likely and a few papers on the subject. I think it's time for the gatekeeping to stop. I'll leave this paper I found, pretty easily, on the subject. It's from a credible scientist in a peer reviewed journal (Bioessays) and in my opinion is eligible for MEDRS. It cites specifically the WIV for gain of function and lab leak. I'm gonna leave you with the proverbial I told you so. I probably won't come back again for a while because I recall the discussion being quite toxic around here. Thanks. Feynstein (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I will add that with the history of the subject here, the recent discussions (those I read) and the recent developments in very mainstream and peer reviewed publications like the BBC, AP, BioEssays, etc. I consider this page to be a perfect example of WP:STONEWALL. There's clear evidence of systematic bias at this point if anyone is still rejecting the lab leak hypothesis as fringe. And since there's a power imbalance between the gatekeepers and the editors who feel this page is problematic, no progress is being made. It feels like there's always a roadblock to inconvenient narratives eh? https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-55404485 Good night. Feynstein (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(EC) That (clearly non-MEDRS) source has already been discussed. The authors of the article are a staff scientist in a mycology lab and an entrepreneur with an MBA–very, very far from experts in viral evolution. This paper could not possibly be used to demonstrate even minor scientific support--it even says so itself: Almost all scientific papers published to date purport that SARS‐CoV‐2 has a natural origin, and the only published paper considering possible a lab origin focuses on serial passage as the technique that could justify SARS‐CoV‐2 special adaptation to human cells. The paper they reference here is another Bioessays piece by Karl Sirotkin and Dan Sirotkin of "Karl Sirotkin LLC". Karl once managed genetics databases for the NCBI, and is now retired. Dan is his son, whose academic career seems to have ended with a bachelor's in poli sci and who now writes a prison stories-turned-COVID conspiracy blog wherein he promotes the likes of Zero Hedge. That Bioessays is publishing articles by people with zero subject-specific expertise and zero or minimal institutional affiliation is a bad sign for its journalistic integrity. JoelleJay (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: It's peer reviewed. Both of them. Your opinion on their integrity is your own. We're not here to debate on whether a paper was written by the Janitor of the scientists son or not, we're here to show it to our readers because leaders in the field deemed them good for publication. Those are both peer reviewed papers in credible journals, our readers deserve to know about them. This is truly shameful and as I just said is Stonewalling. Especially since the new "PubMed" criteria. Which is completely arbitrary. And since there's STILL the mention that the lab leak is a conspiracy theory. It makes all of us editors laughing stock to the public eye at this point. People get here and see this nice propaganda style discourse and just leave because it looks like it's edited by the CCP's ministry of truth. I'm really disappointed. Feynstein (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: You state the authors are a "staff scientist" and an "entrepreneur". Actually, they are a microbiologist and a bio-informaticist. They are highly qualified and their findings are worthy of discussion. Their findings may even be worthy of inclusion in this article. You should pay more attention to content (and the fact that it's peer reviewed) rather than trying to disparage the authors. And you're even trying to badmouth BioEssays. Astounding. Arcturus (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Lab construction of the virus is a conspiracy theory per the best sources, the BioEssays source are not RS for such claims; MEDRS would be needed (i.e. review articles or better). Alexbrn (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: So you're using sources as a basis to disprove other sources? That's new. Also pretty biased, as in confirmation bias. Are your "best sources" review articles? I didn't seem to recall they were. My position still hold. You're outright dismissing anything that's not MEDRS (in your view btw, from my past discussions here last year, it was agreed that peer review was MEDRS) so that they have zero weight. And then you bring in your two articles and use their definition to dismiss the whole hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. Even if clearly mainstream sources at this point are saying it's not. Do you know what sophistry is? Feynstein (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This whole thing you're all doing is a huge WP: STONEWALL. There's no denying it. It's simply illogical to still call it a conspiracy theory. With the amount of proof that's now available I would have had a field day last year. I'm very serious with my Stonewall accusation. This is very problematic and I hope you find a way to fix it. Otherwise we're all looking bad. I'm going now, I'll respond tomorrow. Good night. Feynstein (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• As a general principle on Misplaced Pages we use the best sources, and the use of primary sources to undercut stronger, secondary sources is forbidden by WP:MEDRS. Any previous idea that "peer review means MEDRS" was obviously a silly WP:LOCALCON. We don't override the WP:PAGs just because it suits the agenda of WP:PROFRINGE editors. To get a better understanding of MEDRS I recommend WP:WHYMEDRS and maybe WP:MEDFAQ. Your "stonewall" accusation is about behaviour, and raising it here is disruptive. Take it to AIN or stop it. Also, learn to WP:INDENT your posts as a courtesy; this page is hard enough to follow as it is. Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: I don't like indent it makes it difficult for me to follow the conversation. Sorry. And yes, if you guys don't change your behaviour I will be raising it to whoever it takes, the general behaviour around this topic is disgraceful. Feynstein (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Does anyone object to the text I mentioned above being included in the article? If so, why? Here it is again; As part of their investigations into the origin of Sars-Cov-2, an investigation team from the WHO will visit the Institute. Arcturus (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    I object. How is it relevant if they will go there? Maybe they plan to visit the loo there? Will they look out of the window too? And try to observe a sack of rice falling over? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    It's relevant because it's being covered by reputable sources in their reporting of this significant issue - the issue being that the WHO are investigating the source of the outbreak. Arcturus (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    WP:VNOT probably, unless we can put something non-meaningless. Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    There's no concensus about this and I support it's inclusion. It is relevant to the institute, specifically in it's COVID part. You're using your own subjective impression and your interpretation of the editor's intent to block progress on this page. Arcturus If you include this part and it gets reverted I will revert it back in place, 2 v 1 as of right now. Alexbrn is partaking in edit warring at this point. Quoting policy like its second nature to him. This is harmful to the encyclopedia. Feynstein (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    An invitation to start edit-warring is probably sanctionable. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    This is not an invitation to edit warring, this is adding common sense reliable source fact about this institute (That the WHO will be visiting it during it's investigation). You doing what you're doing now is edit warring. I'm opening the gates bud, your shift is done. Feynstein (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    I'm supporting the original editor who raised this point and not doing it myself because I know it's pointless and will lead to a revert from whoever's keeping the gate up today. I'm actually edit-peacekeeping ;-) Feynstein (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There's not much to say at the moment about the WHO team's visit to the WIV. Misplaced Pages is new a newspaper, so there's no pressure to immediately insert this news item into the article. If there's something more substantial to add later, we can do so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Hi again bud. I propose we at least change the phrasing towards the lab leak hypothesis, at this point the WHO visiting WIV, the clearly MEDRS paper by Segreto and multiple mainstream publications talking about it seriously pushed it off the WP:FRINGE. Btw, I still don't agree with the need for this information to be considered as per Misplaced Pages:Biomedical_information. It pretty much gets into the medical ethics part: "Discussions about the ethics of a treatment, publication, set of rules or practices, or the handling of an event do not constitute biomedical information. Some issues in medical ethics (e.g., how to handle requests from a delusional patient) are frequently discussed in biomedical sources, but ethicists can also be used as sources." May I remind everyone about WP:GAMING. If people generally agree I will be making that change so that the bioweapon theory is identified as a conspiracy theory but not the accidental leak. Feynstein (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and per WP:FRINGE/PS "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through plate tectonics, it became mainstream.": This particular article can't be dismissed by anyone as fringe. Feynstein (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree about the Segreto paper being MEDRS, as I explained in an earlier discussion on this topic. Besides the criteria that Alexbrn has pointed out (e.g., reviews vs. primary research papers vs. essays), the authors are not subject-matter experts (one is a botanist and the other an entrepreneur). The lab-leak theory remains fringe. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

In addition to those points, the Segreto and Deigin paper has been cited only four times on Google Scholar, which scrapes as much as possible, and the only detailed commentary is a preprint that doesn't buy the conclusion. Misplaced Pages should not be citing papers that the scientific literature itself has all but ignored. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

break 2

The six relevant WP:MEDRS are listed here. I checked recently and there's been nothing new of equivalent quality published since this list was made. The recurrent problem on this topic is that we've had WP:PROFRINGE editors wanting indulging in WP:POVSOURCING rather than disinterestedly finding the WP:BESTSOURCES and using those. Why make it complicated? Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a sleight of hand to dismiss a legit paper that would make this article more WP:NPOV. Thucydides411 Do you remember our discussions last year? I can't point to any specific one but you said something like a peer-reviewed paper would make it non-fringe. I would like you to look at her university bio , actually read the paper, what it says and tell me seriously she's a botanist again. She's clearly an evolutionary biologist within the reasonable scientific community as per WP:FRINGE/PS. Are you guys trying to WP:GAME the process by moving goal posts with new policies that violate WP:FRINGE/PS now that the hypothesis surfaced into mainstream publications like the BBC? I assume you're not, but it would be quite disappointing if you were. Those reviews/primary/essays criterias look pretty arbitrary to me, and it seems like they weren't there last time we spoke bud. Would you like me to escalate to conflict resolution? Or maybe behaviour stuff to see if this is WP:STONEWALLING. This discussion has been going on for a while and a concensus wasn't reached. Two people were even suspended in the process, I'm thinking out of frustration from the inflexibility of gatekeeping editors around here. Feynstein (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, yes, Segreto appears to be a botanist. Her papers appear primarily in journals like the American Journal of Botany and The Bryologist. I don't see what previous publication record she has in virology, much less coronaviruses. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Personalized comments and a failure to focus on content is another aspect of the trouble here, and why there have been blocks. Please WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Are you seriously saying that the list you guys made up is a concensus? There's only two people (that seem to both agree with it) discussing the articles in the list. Doesn't seem remotely legit to me. Btw, since you brought this up, at this point I will consider you using WP:PROFRINGE to describe other editors on this clearly mainstream hypothesis to be problematic regarding WP:NPA. Thanks. Feynstein (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

We have had WP:PROFRINGE editors yes; they have been blocked. You can read what the admins said to confirm that has been a problem. Hopefully there will be no continuation and we can WP:FOC. That list of sources is the current MEDRS on this topic, yes. If any more are discovered, it would be good to know about them. Until then, we simply follow these good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you consider Segreto's paper not part of this list, do you have a reference to discussions on this matter? There's plenty of stuff going on here and it would help me greatly. Feynstein (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Feynstein: in your own words, what is it precisely that you regard as a clearly mainstream hypothesis? Could you give a succinct statement of that? Then it would be easier to evaluate the relevant evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: When refering to mainstream I'm talking about general RS sources. The BBC and AP having articles about it makes it clear. However, in the scientific litterature I already made it clear that as per WP:FRINGE/PS this hypothesis can't be considered fringe anymore. "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through plate tectonics, it became mainstream". Can we have a concensus about this so that the discussion can proceed? Feynstein (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That's why I think the part in this article where everything is labeled as "consipiracy theory" to be factually innacurate. Feynstein (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. What part of the everything that the article has labeled as "conspiracy theory do you regard as mainstream? Surely not literally everything that is mentioned there?. Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I consider this sentence The laboratory has nevertheless been the subject of multiple conspiracy theories, widely rejected by the scientific community, about the origin of the virus. to be factually innacurate and should be revised in a way that says the lab leak hypothesis is not part of such conspiracy theories. We could agree on such phrasing. Something like While some scientists think the lab could have had an accidental release (citations), it has nevertheless.... Feynstein (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying that, whatever conspiracy theories there might be, at least one version of the accidental release hypothesis is not FRINGE? And what are the sources supporting such a version of the accidental release hypothesis? Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This one, precisely. That editors around here seem to discard on the basis of author credibility and some made-up non-concensus policy about respecting a list of pre-approved papers that one side agreed to be MEDRS. Feynstein (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a preprint, so surely we can wait for peer review? This seems to be a whole lot of excitement about nothing. Once there are reliable sources for a non-CT version of laboratory origin, then the article can say so. At the moment, there don't seem to be any. 18:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh but this is not a preprint my friend. It's legit peer-reviewed:BioEssays. Btw I don't recall subjective credibility review of authors by editors on WP to be standard practice for inclusion in our articles. Feynstein (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Here you can see for yourself how thorough it is. Feynstein (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If it isn't a preprint, then what is it doing filed under "Early View"? I thought that was what that section was for. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Journals release their approved papers on COVID before they come out in the regular issue. Which is usually physically printed. If everyone waited for journals to actually print their stuff there wouldn't be a vaccine right now. Once it says "first published" or "published" it means it's not a preprint anymore. And contrary to what Alexbrn seems to say, it is a primary source because it uses genetic data from databases directly to check the hypothesis. It also does a pretty good job at litterature review and paper critique. That's why I'm claiming WP:STONEWALLING. Maybe if editors read the paper carefully, they'd find out it's a primary source. Feynstein (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But MEDRS specifies that primary sources are not the standard of reliability on topics related to human health, secondary and tertiary sources are (in fact, this is also part of ordinary RS policy. So why would you want to show that this early-print paper is primary? Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class China-related articles
• Mid-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in China
• WikiProject China articles
• C-Class organization articles
• Mid-importance organization articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of organizations
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• C-Class virus articles
• Mid-importance virus articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of viruses
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• C-Class Molecular Biology articles
• Mid-importance Molecular Biology articles
• All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
• C-Class COVID-19 articles
• Mid-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles