Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 18 April 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 lab leak theory 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 medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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. COVID-19 High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Emergency / Society / Pulmonology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Molecular Biology Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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. Viruses Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page history

This article was nominated for deletion on July 18, 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. On 26 July 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis to COVID-19 lab leak claims. The result of the discussion was moved to COVID-19 lab leak theory. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jackson Ryan (27 June 2021). "Misplaced Pages is at war over the coronavirus lab leak theory". Cnet. Retrieved 21 February 2022. Rhys Blakely (11 November 2021). "The Covid-19 lab-leak theory: 'I've had death threats'". The Times. Retrieved 21 February 2022. When she first spoke out, the lab-leak theory was dismissed – in public, at least – by senior virologists as a fantasy of populist politicians and internet cranks. Facebook and Misplaced Pages banned any mention of the possibility that the virus had escaped from a Wuhan lab, branding it a conspiracy theory. Renée DiResta (21 July 2021). "Institutional Authority Has Vanished. Misplaced Pages Points to the Answer". The Atlantic. Retrieved 21 February 2021. The "Talk" page linked to the Misplaced Pages entry on the origin of the coronavirus provides visibility into the roiling editing wars. Sock-puppet accounts descended, trying to nudge the coverage of the topic to reflect particular points of view. A separate page was created, dedicated specifically to the "COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis," but site administrators later deleted it—a decision that remains in dispute within the Misplaced Pages community.

• v
• t
• e

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

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

• v
• e

Lab leak theory sources

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

References

Racism associated with both wet market and lab leak hypotheses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOS:WEASEL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Those are not the BESTSOURCES. They are correspondence pieces in semi-relevant journals. 2) RSOPINION are not very useful for establishing scientific consensus. We have WP:RS/AC for that 3) These Opinion piece authors are not experts about this topic, and therefore these are not even very reliable for this, see WP:RSEDITORIAL.Agree the AP piece would be undue and overweighted if included in the lead at all. it's also not relevant to this article. — Shibbolethink 14:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lanzhou brucellosis lab leak

I don't agree with this revert related to the Lanzhou brucellosis lab leak. The revert message says "undue/fringe", but the Washington Post is neither. Note in particular that we are sourcing our description of DRASTIC to a single article in the South China Morning Post, which is surely less notable than the WaPo. Furthermore, the brucellosis incident is covered by this academic paper. On a separate note, it would be good to have the full text of the paper if it is available. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

How is this relevant? Bon courage (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The section is entitled "Prior lab leak incidents and conspiracy theories". This fits right in. Furthermore, the WaPo itself draws the connection extensively. I can't copy the entire article per WP:COPYVIO, but here is a small sample, which only begins to show just how much the article connects the two:

As the pandemic enters its fourth year, new details about the little-known Lanzhou incident offer a revealing glimpse into a much larger — and largely hidden — struggle with biosafety across China in late 2019, at the precise moment when both the brucellosis incident and the coronavirus outbreak were coming to light.

Adoring nanny (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

so what's it got to do with the lab leak theory? are some proponents making a connection? - because your extract (and the article) doesn't. Bon courage (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the source? It is throughout the article. As I said, I can't copy the whole thing. Here is another excerpt, one of very many:

At the Wuhan Institute of Virology, social media postings in late 2019 confirm previously reported safety lapses among lab workers conducting field research on unknown coronaviruses. Chinese scientists collected 20,000 virus samples from bats and other animals by 2019 and conducted genetic tests for hundreds of them, documents show. Social media postings show scientists working in caves filled with thousands of disease-carrying bats and sometimes handling the creatures and their excrement without gloves or other protective gear needed to prevent accidental infection.

Adoring nanny (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and it doesn't make the link but sort of leaves it in the air: since there's no evidence SCV" existed in any lab this seems like more irrelevant guesswork. Have any of the lab leak fanbois picked this up? Bon courage (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Again from the source:

the work included creating genetically modified “chimeras” by splicing genetic material from one virus onto another for lab tests. Wuhan Institute officials did not respond to a request for comment.

And what is 'SCV"'? Adoring nanny (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

So what? No mention of SCV2 lab leaks. That may be what you read into it. It may even be what the authors are trying to hint at. But for our purposes? nah. Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's related, the post just did what a good new org should, kept the investigation and opinion separate. If this article is news about the lab leak it's probably a good source, but i don't think that is what the article should be. fiveby(zero) 13:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup WP:NOTNEWS. It's the same reason we should not be piling stuff in about raccoon dogs. Bon courage (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Pile in this while you are at it: 1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom. Lab leaks happen. But it is wp:synth to claim without support of an RS (or even imply) that there is a culture of sloppy lab hygiene in research labs, such that a reasonable person might suppose that C19 was more likely to be the result of a lab leak than an inter-species transfer at an unhygienic "wet market" that traded in known virus reservoirs. There is no such evidence. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't quite follow that. But it's fair to say that the WaPo article is documenting a culture of sloppy lab hygiene in China, as of late 2019. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

In no way relevant to this article, if its notable start a separate article. Linking what WaPo says to this article without WaPo making that link themselves is synth. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Another revert that describes material from the Washington Post as "fringe"

This revert is not appropriate. The reverted description was paraphrased from the Washington Post. Per the WaPo,

DRASTIC, a loose confederation of data analysts and amateur sleuths who mine open-source Chinese documents for information about covid-19.

I paraphrased this as

DRASTIC, a collection of internet researchers who search Chinese documents for information about COVID-19.

The WaPo is far from WP:FRINGE. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edit was what I was describing as fringe, actually. We're not going to whitewash the more unsavoury side of DRASTIC, as is well-sourced and - if you have forgotten - has been discussed at some length. Bon courage (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

How can an *edit* be fringe? An edit can support a fringe viewpoint but an edit itself can't be fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes: WP:PROFRINGE to be precise. Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thats not precise, what part of that very diverse section are you feeling is at issue here? Most of it appears not to apply because we have a WP:RS to work from. Actually reading through line by line none of it appears to apply here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not about a "section". Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The full name of the section you linked with WP:PROFRINGE is "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories" now tell us what line or lines of that section you believe apply here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Bigging up DRASTIC unduly by removing any mention of their support for lab leak, again (also losing the 'amateur' description). Makes it seem more legit than it is. Bon courage (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Bigging up DRASTIC! Ok Ali G lol. Thats certainly a valid claim, it has nothing to do with PROFRINGE though... Its not PROFRINGEBYPROXY Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Watering-down wording in a way that suggests an amateurish activist group is some kind of neutral research outfit, is problematic. Bon courage (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It may be problematic, but it isn't covered by WP:PROFRINGE. You need to actually know what you're linking to rather than just using the words that sound right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Ooh, going for the personal attack. Better to actually and read and grok the guideline which is exactly on point. Trying to inflate the credentials of a group by watering down criticism to favour a fringe position is what it's all about. Bon courage (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

What personal attack? If thats what PROFRINGE is "all about" its odd that it doesn't even mention it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

PROFRINGE says : Attempts by inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories…are prohibited — Shibbolethink 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly: it's not what WP:PROFRINGE is all about, but it's what this objection is "all about". Coy wording to make a group appear (to the innocent reader) less odd than it is. Bon courage (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The lab leak theory is mainstream science. Bon courage's continued WP:IDHT to the contrary is disruptive. Sennalen (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The lab leak theory (minus any genetic engineering and minus any bio weapons claims) is, at best, a minority viewpoint.

The perspective most commonly promoted by DRASTIC, on the other hand (WIV kept, in secret, a virus from the mojaing mine that they then secretly engineered to be more infectious in humans and released) is a fringe conspiracy theory not supported by any scientific publications, evidence, or expert viewpoint. It's entirely supposition from fringe theorists. — Shibbolethink 14:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the WP the only source about this group? Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

We had an entire long and drawn out RfC about this, as I recall, over at Talk:DRASTIC#RFC how should we describe them. The result over there was consensus in favor of "internet activists". I would say AN's edit also cherry picks the most flattering descriptors to portray a positive view. It does not include any of "amateur sleuths" from WaPo or "activists" or "promote lab leak theory" from our other sources. — Shibbolethink 15:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

We are supposed to paraphrase. I used "internet researchers" as a paraphrase of "data analysts and amateur sleuths". I used "search Chinese documents" as a paraphrase for "mine open-source Chinese documents". I suppose one could argue that leaving off the word "amateur" slants things in one direction. But then again, leaving out "data analysts" slants things in a different direction. I don't object to substituting "activists" for "researchers", if that is the problem. The point below about "Chinese" being too narrow is well taken. I would not object to leaving that out. That would get us to something like

DRASTIC, a collection of internet activists who search documents for information about COVID-19.

Adoring nanny (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with our current status quo descriptor: DRASTIC, a collection of internet activists vociferously supporting the lab leak idea ?And/or how can we incorporate the sourcing we have for that current descriptor into your preferred one? I.e. "advocates for lab leak idea" etc. I don't think there is consensus to do this change, at least not right now. — Shibbolethink 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

As you are aware, sources prior to the WaPo were split on whether they are "supporting the lab leak idea" or "researching the origin". The current descriptor chooses "supporting the lab leak idea". But one problem with both of the above is that they are subjective. Different people can reasonably differ about the objective of someone's research. But the action of searching documents for information is factual and indisputable. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages likes knowledge, which is a bit more than facts. And "searching documents for information" is POV anyway, since of course they're not searching for any information that would undercut their beliefs. Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Multiple. It's why the RfC decided they be called 'activists'. Bon courage (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful, please link the multiple sources which say that "they're not searching for any information that would undercut their beliefs." I think thats an important addition to make to our coverage of the issue on the page, but of course we need to source it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine, and you can understand its ramifications (or not) as you will. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I would actually like to propose wording which includes that, the sources please. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Check the sources currently cited in this article, and those cited at the RfC linked above. Those are probably the ones BC means. — Shibbolethink 17:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I have, I'm not finding this assertion in any of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the WaPo source as compelling any major change to the description of DRASTIC. In particular, I would oppose "researchers who search Chinese documents for information about COVID-19", as DRASTIC has been diving into more than just Chinese documents, and their leaks related to American documents have had a major impact on the theory. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The article mentions DRASTIC, in passing, as a source of their reporting. It does not discuss DRASTIC and shouldn't be used as any kind of source about DRASTIC. You might make a case for appropriate tone in description at Talk:DRASTIC but that is probably the most that could be said. fiveby(zero) 16:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe change it to "Members of DRASTIC, a collection of internet activists"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Except that washes away the advocacy aspect. Activists for what would be the unanswered question ... Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, the section is talking about a Mine not a lab leak. So its clear they do not only advocate for that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is why the status quo wording works. Bon courage (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

No it does not, as it says they only look into the lad leak theory, they do not, I now can't support the current wording. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Current sourcing says "among the most aggressive advocates of the lab-leak theory" — Shibbolethink 17:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: the copper mine thing is part of the lab leak 'theory' - that a virus there was the secret progenitor to SCV2. That's why it gets some coverage in this article. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

'Vociferously'(in a loud and forceful manner) needs to go; it's not present in the sources, it's not present on the DRASTIC article, it was never mentioned in the RfC, and it's MOS:PUFFERY. And it's a red flag to our readers that the POV of this article is questionable. SmolBrane (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

it's "aggressive" in the sources. How would you paraphrase that? Bon courage (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

'Aggressive' in *one* source. And I would probably omit this characterization entirely: MOS: "Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it." Do you think our readers benefit from this puffery? SmolBrane (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The soruces does, our article is however not using it about the lab leak, so why does it need to be mentioned? Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Err, it's not "puffery"; you might argue it's the opposite. But we don't whitewash stuff away, particularly in WP:FRINGE topic areas. Bon courage (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe the sources say: among the most aggressive advocates of the lab-leak theory, a group of amateurs decided to sniff the lab leak theory to the ground, (among others linked in the RfC above). I think vociferous support is a fair SYNTHNOTSUMMARY of "aggressive advocacy" and "sniff the lab leak theory to the ground", not to mention "members of Drastic have targeted virologists and epidemiologists who refuse to engage with the lab leak theory, and they've even falsely accused some of working for the Chinese Communist Party" — Shibbolethink 17:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

. . . but those aren't the only sources. As mentioned above, the WaPo says a loose confederation of data analysts and amateur sleuths who mine open-source Chinese documents for information about covid-19. And Vanity Fair says Their stated objective was to solve the riddle of COVID-19’s origin.. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The reliability of Eban and VF's reporting has been heavily called into question after their co-reported Intercept fiasco. I wouldn't consider that source to be very independent or balanced wrt the topic given those events. WaPo, sure, but it doesn't really address how "aggressively" they support the lab leak, does it? — Shibbolethink 18:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

But even the New Yorker source agrees that they find things in documents. On September 21st, DRASTIC published a startling new revelation. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It was called into question, but they generally aquitted themselves. The kerfluffle boiled down to one Chinese translation, where experts find VF's translation to be one valid possibility out of several alternatives. The rest of their report doesn't rest on that one translation, either. Sennalen (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

they generally aquitted themselves
I would love to see your source on this statement. AFAICT, that is not the case, and it is not how we describe it in the article at all. — Shibbolethink 23:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The main source is propublica itself. https://www.propublica.org/article/editors-note-a-review-of-criticisms-of-a-propublica-vanity-fair-story-on-a-covid-origins-report Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? but I don't know of any rebuttal of the rebuttal. Regardless of how one interprets "this" in "every time this has happened," the documents still show a non-routine safety review happened in November 2019. Sennalen (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"sniff...to the ground" is not self evidently aggressive, could be construed as "getting to the root of" or something similarly idiomatic(MOS:IDIOM). CNET("targeted virologists") has no consensus for reliability in 2021 as per the perennial source list, should be attributed at least. Yes Bon Courage sometimes puffery is negative (MOS:PUFFERY "negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much.") SmolBrane (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Puffery is never negative. That is why the words 'just as much' are used. This is basic English. Bon courage (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC: How should we describe DRASTIC?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How should the article introduce DRASTIC?

• A: a collection of internet activists vociferously supporting the lab leak idea, with the below refs to The New Yorker, The Hindu, and Nature (status quo. I will start a list of refs below shortly.)
• B: a collection of internet researchers searching documents for information about COVID-19, with the below refs to The New Yorker, Nature, Vanity Fair, and the Washington Post.
• C: Something else. Please specify.

Adoring nanny (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• C.1: "a collection of internet activists" c/o Slatersteven

C.2: "a collection of internet activists advocating for the lab leak theory" c/o Shibbolethink

Extremely pertinent details for this RFC opening statement:

1. List of sources below detailing how our best available sources describe the group
2. Prior RFCs at Talk:DRASTIC from July 2021 and October 2021 were withdrawn and closed in favor of "internet activists", respectively.

— Shibbolethink 14:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option B. The strongest source is the WaPo. This description is close to theirs. One difference is that the WaPo limits it to Chinese documents. But as USER:firefangledfeathers said, that's too narrow, so I've left it out. Furthermore, the New Yorker, The Hindu, the WaPo, and Vanity Fair all describe DRASTIC finding documents with information. I will document that under discussion. As a second choice, I could get behind Option C1 from USER:Slatersteven as a reasonable compromise. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Procedural close. We already had this RfC less than 18 months ago and nothing substantial has changed. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  I search the prior RfC in vain for a consensus that the WaPo source should be excluded. I similarly search it in vain for a consensus on the phrase "vociferously supporting the lab leak idea". Both were issues raised by your revert. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  One extra source with nothing new in it does not merit a new RfC. Because this is an article about lab leaks (not DRASTIC) we need some text to explain who they are. You text is borderline illiterate anyway: what are "internet researchers"? researchers into the internet? or researchers using only the internet? And they're not looking for information on "COVID-19" (a disease) but viruses and laboratories. This is why launching RfCs without WP:RFCBEFORE is a bad idea and, here, disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm open to improvements in the wording. I made efforts above at WP:COMPROMISE. I didn't see any reciprocation. Hence the RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  An internet researcher is someone who knows how to google a word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Or maybe they use Gopher? Bon courage (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Between the two, B is more encyclopedic in tone. There are several claims to unpack about DRASTIC

1. They are an online group
2. They include scientists and amateurs
3. They search for covid origins
4. They investigate leaked documents
5. They favor lab leak theories
6. They are sometimes rude or zealous

It will take 2-3 sentences to cover all the facets. Sennalen (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Option C. "a collection of internet activists". Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Options A or C.2: "a collection of Internet activists advocating for the lab leak theory" with a side of bad RFC. A is supported by more sources and the highest quality sources (The New Yorker is at least on par with WaPo and probably better quality given the depth of reporting, neutrality, and balance of perspectives in the article.) Other than being from a certain pro-DRASTIC perspective, I cannot think of a reason why WaPo would be considered higher quality. My alternative suggestion can maybe allay some concerns about balancing out "aggressive" from the sources, but still including the number of sources and prior RFC on Talk:DRASTIC which indicate "activist" is the best descriptor. This is a bad RFC because it gave no chance for RFCBEFORE, or to have any other input besides OP in the options. This splits the discussion and inappropriately sidelines alternative choices, making it more difficult for options besides their own to achieve consensus. The RFC top post is also non-neutral, in that it leaves out pertinent information (e.g. the RFC at Talk:DRASTIC, which is extremely pertinent. OP should consider withdrawing and reopening after a period where others can help formulate options. — Shibbolethink 14:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RfC, first of all, for the reasons that Shibbolethink explained. I also echo the concerns that the phrasing "Internet researchers" just doesn't make sense. A is acceptable; C.2 is more drab but also generally fine. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option A or C.2. Given the number RSes listed below that have caveat words (such as amateur sleuths in the WaPo) that apply to at least some members, I think B by itself lacks needed meaning from the sources. I am not a huge fan of "vociferously" but I think including that nuance is good so for now A then C.2. Skynxnex (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option A or C.2 for NPOV. If we're going to mention this group we need some context to say who they and need to avoid falsely implying they're a "research body" on a par with the respectable and relevant experts in the field. NPOV isn't negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option C.1 or C.2 as second preference oppose anything else. If anyone wants to overturn the RFC at the DRASTIC article they should start at the talk page of that article, not by trying to fudge the issue here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• C.2>A, per the discussion above. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• I am stunned. Did you guys discuss this during last two years? I think C by Slatersteven should be good. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah it's a bad RfC. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• C.2 is most succinct, I think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at the collection of sources below - maybe it isn't a representative sample - it appears that none of them specifically use the term "activist". "Activist" has different connotations to the various other terms which are used by the sources listed below, such as "sleuth", "loose-knit group", "amature investigative team", "advocates" etc. So I don't see how the use of the term "activists" would follow WP:NPOV here - if a word like that were to be used "advocates" at least seems like it would be closer to what the general balance of sources seem to say. Is my perception of this wrong? --Tristario (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  We should be summarizing in our our words rather than copying words from sources, so the question is: is this a fair summary. I think considering that RS call the group such things 'aggressive', 'advocates' and 'guerrilla lab-leak snoops' then yes, it is a fair summary. Bon courage (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  "Activist" is a fairly specific term. If not even one source refers to them that way then I'm pretty unconvinced this complies with WP:NPOV. People and groups can be aggressive and advocates - and many are both of those things - without being activists. And also from the sources below there appears to be only one (The new yorker) that uses either "aggressive" or "advocates". Tristario (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's up to you to !vote as you wish then, but we should reflect the things found in RS rather than synthesize a position, and avoid reading into sources things from what they don't say. Bon courage (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think it bears mentioning that "investigating" and "sleuthing" aren't the only things that the sources say this group does. The sources also describe aggressive advocacy of the pro-lab leak position, harassment of scientists and journalists who are critical of the lab leak idea, and protesting/letter-writing to attempt to move the position of government and non-governmental agencies. To me, putting all these things together, it sounds an awful lot like WP:SKYBLUE activism, and that is also what a consensus of participants in the RfC over at Talk:DRASTIC thought. — Shibbolethink 17:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• C.2, or, failing that, A. C.2 is a more neutral summary of what the sources that go into depth on the topic say. The sources being used to advance alternative formulations are largely passing mentions, so it's inappropriate to rely so heavily on them when in-depth sources are more clear on these aspects. --Aquillion (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• C2, as the most descriptive, B is laughably neutered. ValarianB (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option B. The focus of the group is quite clearly research (as described in all the RSs and in the name of the group itself).

An activist is a campaigner. It's obvious from reading the sources that campaigning is not the main focus of the group. With any of the other options, the reader could come away with the impression that the group is a campaign group like, for example, Extinction Rebellion or Black Lives Matter, which is obviously wronng. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) — PieLover3141592654 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How RSes describe DRASTIC

Anyone should feel free to add to the list below. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

(sorted chronologically and formatted by — Shibbolethink 16:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC))

Discussion

Here are descriptions, per various sources, of DRASTIC finding documents with information about the origin of COVID-19. Therefore, although the sources differ in their brief descriptors (above under "Sources"), they are united in describing various incidents of the actual discovery of documents with information related to the origin of COVID-19. My apologies for the length; I'll collapse to aid reading.

Adoring nanny (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Added BMJ to the list above. Did not find a mention in the Nature link. Sennalen (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed Nature link, added a bunch of other sources from the previous RFCs and other searches on those talk archives. — Shibbolethink 16:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph about Vanity Fair, ProPublica, and the Congressional Investigation.

I'll put the current version, collapsed, below. Can we do something to clean this up. I made an attempt. It was reverted. I don't really care if my attempt is used or not. But in the current version, there is nothing that tells the reader that the "mistranslation" criticism was about Vanity Fair, while the "a cynical effort to try to win Republican votes" criticism and the "a bunch of staffers with no ability to understand the science" criticism were both about the Republican report. On top of the confusion, the current version badly fails WP:NPOV, as Vanity Fair's response is not mentioned, and the discussion of the Republican report has three criticisms.

Adoring nanny (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I am wondering why we need to cover it at all. Just another run-of-the-mill silly journalistic gaffe that streaked across the sky and was forgotten (outside LL obsessive circles anyway). Vanity Fair's response is most definitely not due, as it's not independent as is self-serving. Bon courage (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The Pro Publica report is not noteworthy in itself, but it's one of several sources now about circumstantial evidence for a biosecurity emergency at WIV in November 2019. Any behind-the-scenes drama including nothingburger complaints about Chinese translations that weren't a load-bearing piece of evidence are all undue. Sennalen (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I though the whole point was that there was no 'evidence' other than some guy claiming he alone on the planet understood the secret codes of Mandarin, while making basic mistakes which ... called that into question. Bon courage (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There are some ambiguous phrases. On the whole, that doesn't call into question the documentation of specific biosafety lapses. Sennalen (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

there was no 'evidence' other than some guy claiming he alone on the planet understood the secret codes of Mandarin
This is the key point to the "mistranslation" angle. A bunch of different language experts (who have no prior concern with the lab leak) called the report out as full of shit, and the journalists as incompetent for not fact-checking the findings with any other language or diplomatic experts. THAT is why the criticism is both about VF/PP AND the senate investigation. The journalists had responsibility to fact-check those things before they parroted them out to the public. — Shibbolethink 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

They did fact check, and then fact checked some more after the criticisms. The criticisms are overblown. In the phrase "Every time this has happened" it's unclear what 'this' refers to. That is not the load-bearing piece of evidence, still. There was a problem with disinfectants corroding stainless steel inclosures with a paper trail going back to 2016. A WIV scientist explicitly wrote that it could lead to a pathogen escaping. A party official came for an urgent meeting about laboratory safety on November 19, and an order was placed for an air incenerator the same day. As far as I know, there's no question about the translations for any of that. Sennalen (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Sennalen: On the whole, that doesn't call into question the documentation of specific biosafety lapses. Actually this is explicitly not true. The most important angle of what diplomats, china-watchers, and other foreign-relations people said about this whole thing (VF, PP, and the Senate report) is specifically this, that there were no breaches. E.g.

These people explicitly criticize Toy Reid for concluding (inappropriately) that there was a security lapse, whereas the actual language of the in-house inter-governmental communication was discussing the theoretical possibility of a security lapse. They also criticize VF and PP for lazily reporting this as fact, without actually fact-checking it with any third party chinese-language experts. Probably because Toy Reid made it sound like he had the crystal ball to interpret everything Chinese government officials say to mean what he thinks it actually means. When someone tells you they alone have the key to the kingdom, hire a locksmith. Pretty obvious screw up. — Shibbolethink 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Telegraph: "Covid pandemic sparked by accidental leak from Wuhan lab, US investigation concludes"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/04/18/coronavirus-covid-origin-wuhan-lab-us-senate-report/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I picture Perry White on the phone yelling "Rewrite!" Randy Kryn (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Is that those silly politicians again? Bon courage (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly what a great example of why the Telegraph isn't reliable for politics. — Shibbolethink 11:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

To clarify my comment, it was not a criticism as much as citing another example of why the lead of this page should be changed ("rewrite") to reflect the growing evidence that Covid-19 did emerge from the lab. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there "growing evidence" or just opinions? Even this report says it is not a definitive answer, and opinion is divided. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There's shrinking evidence for zoonosis, perhaps "no evidence" as the new senate report says. This will become clearer in time as research reorients in light of Liu, Gao, et al. and EcoHealth FOIAs. Sennalen (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And when it is published in peer reviewed journals we can take note. Also how do we change the lede right now? Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, we might start with the bold statement that “There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic”. This rests on three sources, the most recent of which is eight months old. It appears that one element of the new report is precisely such evidence: namely that work was being undertaken on a vaccine to the virus. It also appears that the report is nuanced and tentative in its conclusions; allowing that a definitive answer is not known.

This is a difficult article for us, witness the visceral reaction to any proposed changes which may seem to lead weight to the theory. Springnuts (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

… apologies, my phone ate half the comment.

I was simply going to add that if we were writing the article afresh… but we are not. We must start where we are.if we were writing the article a fresh… But we are not. We must start where we are.

Springnuts (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"visceral", really? And this report does not provide any evidence there was any SArs in the lab. As you say "a definitive answer is not known" supposition is not evidence. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Peter Daszak confirmed they had collected 50 unpublished novel coronaviruses by 2019. FOIA requests show they were infecting mice that had humanized ACE2 receptors. There's no evidence they started the fire, but there's evidence they were juggling butane torches wearing tiki skirts. Sennalen (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The situation currently is that evidence favors an engineered laboratory origin. We must sit on our hands while publishing institutions work through the process, but let's not kid ourselves about the direction its going. Sennalen (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I shouldn't be difficult: stick to the WP:BESTSOURCES, ensure anything biomedical is sourced to WP:MEDRS, remember WP:NOTNEWS and keep the WP:FRINGE stuff down. Simple. The problem is more WP:PROFRINGE lab-leak advocates, as the steady stream of sanctions over the months demonstrates. Bon courage (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And both these responses demonstrate precisely the viscerality of which I was speaking. Springnuts (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A vivid imagination at work (or maybe projection?)! This is just routine workaday editing for one fringe subject among hundreds. Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a fringe topic though. There's been an RFC about this and there wasn't a consensus decision to label lab leak a fringe theory. Which makes sense, given the WHO, seven US intelligence agencies, the CDC etc. all say it's plausible and worthy of further investigation. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) — PieLover3141592654 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In English Language term it's debatable whether it's a "fringe theory"; but in Misplaced Pages terms it is covered by WP:FRINGE, which is widely drawn. Bon courage (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

actually that was only to conclude it was not a "conspiracy theory". A thing can be fringe-adjacent, and covered by WP:FRINGE, without being a conspiracy theory. And there was actually no consensus either way on that question. So none of us can conclusively say it is or is not a conspiracy theory by Misplaced Pages's community's thinking. — Shibbolethink 18:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Well we go by what qualified RS say. End of story. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The full text of the Telegraph article is available here . Adoring nanny (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Politicians being politicians. The whacko dial has been turned to 11 for a lot of them in the US for a while, it seems. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The full Republican report is here. ABC news did a lengthy segment on it available here. At 7:58, ABC describes it as a "an example of a very thoroughgoing review of the evidence." Adoring nanny (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Come back when there's some MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Was there a new RfC overturning the consensus that pandemic origins don't require MEDRS? Sennalen (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow, ABC news considered it to be thorough? We should probably just throw out all the other criticisms from experts then. /s — Shibbolethink 18:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class COVID-19 articles
• High-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Low-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• C-Class emergency medicine and EMS articles
• Low-importance emergency medicine and EMS articles
• Emergency medicine and EMS task force articles
• C-Class society and medicine articles
• Mid-importance society and medicine articles
• Society and medicine task force articles
• C-Class pulmonology articles
• Mid-importance pulmonology articles
• Pulmonology task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class Molecular Biology articles
• Low-importance Molecular Biology articles
• All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
• C-Class virus articles
• Low-importance virus articles
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment