Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:33, 25 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, 36Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is 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

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)

Washington Post and DRASTIC

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

C.3: "a loose knit online group researching and advocating for the lab leak idea" c/o Tristario

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)

  The issue is that a group or a person can do all of those things, as many do, without being an "activist". Maybe reliable sources should be labelling them activists, but given that they aren't, I don't think we should be choosing that label either. I don't think "researchers" would be an accurate representation of the sources either Tristario (talk) 01:08, 19 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.

• Option A. One of its main members is Billy Bostickson, who self-describes as a member of "Rage University", an organization that claims to have a mission "to advance the tactics, tools and techniques of radical activists, empowering them to use information, direct action, media and communication to help communities and individuals to achieve social, environmental and political change, as well as to protect them from State Repression and Violence". Other members seem to have different motivations, but I would go with Bostickson as one the leaders, influencing the tone of the discussion to go in activist ways. Forich (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Didn't seem to work very well on Misplaced Pages. Bon courage (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• Option A or C.2, based on the sources provided below. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Internet Activists is succinct. Alternatively a Self-styled Network of Independent Researchers Investigating The Origins of COVID-19 sits fine with me. J mareeswaran (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• C.2 is by far the best given our sources, since it highlights their status as non-neutral non-experts. C.1 fails to state they're non-neutral. The others are nonstarters: B is pro-fringe by framing them as disinterested actors and implying they have expertise as "researchers". Option A is a dramaticised exaggeration of one source, turning among the most aggressive up to eleven into "vociferous", which is excessive creative license. DFlhb (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• C Per my concerns above, none of the sources call them "activists". They're described with a variety of different terms and descriptions that have different meanings to "activists", as well as different connotations. So using "activists" wouldn't comply with WP:NPOV and I also don't think it would even pass WP:V. In terms of which description should be used, something along the lines of a loose knit online group researching and advocating for the lab leak idea would comply with WP:NPOV better. To me, frankly, using "activists" seems like a very clear cut WP:NPOV violation - none of the sources say that, and it doesn't even represent the spirit of how sources generally describe the group. --Tristario (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  There are two different options C. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think @Tristario's suggestion would be C.3: a loose knit online group researching and advocating for the lab leak idea. — Shibbolethink 01:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, yes. Or something along those lines Tristario (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I like C.3. I think it needs to have research in the description because that is primarily what the group seems to do. And this option makes clear that they are not academic researchers. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Pseudoscientists seem to do science, but do not actually do it. We do not write that they do it. So why would we write that Drastic does something it actually only seems to do? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps "researching" isn't the best phrase, but if you look at what the sources say (which is what we should be doing) they primarily describe the group as engaging in "investigating" "sleuthing" "research" "data analysis" "detectives" "open-source intelligence" "exposing mysteries". We need to accurately describe what exactly this group is, and we need to do it in a way that complies with WP:NPOV. Tristario (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, there's doing research and there's "doing research". We're more in the latter situation here. Bon courage (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  The word 'researching' just means 'investigating systematically'. It doesn't imply expertise.

  For example, a 10 year could research the Romans for a history project.

  Something along the lines of "investigating", "sleuthing" or "open source intelligence" would also work IMO. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  The word 'researching' just means 'investigating systematically'. It doesn't imply expertise
  "systematically" is precisely the word in that definition which implies expertise. — Shibbolethink 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  So a 10 year old doing his history homework is an expert on the Romans? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• C.2. As several others have stated above, this is a bad RfC. Nothing substantial has changed since the last one. That said, C.2 is the most succinct, encyclopedic in tone, and consonant with the sources. I'm not a fan of the extraneous adverb in A, while B comes across as almost duplicitous in its blandness, as though the group were equally interested in highlighting information that confirms or disconfirms the lab-leak hypothesis. That is very obviously false. Generalrelative (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

US Senate minority staff report

Paragraph about ProPublica, Vanity Fair, and Congress

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)

Much of this appears to be conspiracy-fodder from fringe-outlets. I see no high quality reporting on it, or fact checking of it. Perhaps there are better areas of the internet to discuss these things, other than Misplaced Pages, which is not meant to reflect whatever truth you see in these facts, but rather what our best available sources say. And they do not say this. — Shibbolethink 19:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I see high-quality reporting from Pro Publica. We'll see what comes out of the reporting on the final Senate version, which is a revised version of the same analysis. Sennalen (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If you'll examine the archives of this talk page, you'll see that local consensus is that this report was unreliable based on the criticisms from notable experts and reporting from reliable outlets like Semafor, The Guardian, Bloomberg, The Atlantic, etc.
It overall doesn't really matter what VF and PP said about the criticisms, since our most reliable news sources treat these criticisms as credible. — Shibbolethink 19:21, 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)

That's just examples of exactly what I said it was. Not only is Reid's translation plausible (among other plausible translations), it is not a load-bearing piece of evidence, unlike for instance the metal corrosion. The translation of that sentence only shapes innuendo. Sennalen (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Not only is Reid's translation plausible (among other plausible translations), it is not a load-bearing piece of evidence, unlike for instance the metal corrosion
Do you have expertise or any formal training in Chinese-English translation or Chinese-American diplomatic relations? Or in biosafety/biosecurity? I tend to trust the experts and what our best available sources say. I didn't even include the many diplomatic relations experts who said, essentially This is making a massive mountain out of nothing, Chinese-language intra-governmental reports are always written like this to inflate things into more than they are, so one can look better by solving it.Or the scientists who said, in essence, This report totally got the science wrong too! They completely misinterpreted all of my findings! — Shibbolethink 19:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we really want to get into using tweets in the article? For example, Alina Chan has quite a lot of WP:USEBYOTHERS on the lab leak. I've refrained from using her because I assume we don't want to be reaching into twitter for sourcing. Similarly, there is Richard Ebright . Adoring nanny (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I never suggested we should use tweets in the article. Please argue against what I actually said, instead of the least charitable interpretation thereof. The tweets above were quoted by Semafor in their article about the lab leak as independent chinese-language and diplomacy experts, the only reason I referenced them here at all. We can use tweets to discuss the merits of different sources, but we should never use them in sourcing article text, since they are a WP:PRIMARY non-reliable source. — Shibbolethink 15:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Telegraph story re: US Senate minority staff report

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)

The situation currently is that evidence favors an engineered laboratory origin
I'm sorry, what? What evidence? There is a scientific consensus that the viral genome shows no evidence of genetic engineering. That no current evidence exists to support the lab leak hypothesis. This is what we describe on wikipedia, because it comes from our WP:BESTSOURCES. — Shibbolethink 19:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Intelligence, FOIAs, and preprints. Eventually there's bound to be a review article based on evidence. Sennalen (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing that review article published in a topic-relevant widely-circulated journal, peer-reviewed and authored by relevant experts. Until then, this is not very relevant to how we should write a Misplaced Pages article. — Shibbolethink 19:29, 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)

Please can you explain why it is covered by WP:FRINGE? Where is the relevant discussion where the consensus was formed? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

When I go to WP:RSP for the Daily Telegraph, I see green. It does say some editors consider the DT to be biased or opinionated for Politics. But that's not the same as being unreliable. Do you see something different? Adoring nanny (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I see the many multiple times on this talk page where we have described this as a questionable source for politics, especially for scientific understanding of politics. And then an overwhelming amount of sources which disagree with the take by this outlet. Seems an outlier to me. — Shibbolethink 19:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I asked here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_the_Daily_Telegraph_for_politics? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:31, 19 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)

There was no such RfC. Biomedical stuff requires MEDRS; non-biomedical stuff doesn't, Bon courage (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe the conclusion of the RfC you're referring to was, in essence, COVID origins isn't inherently BMI, but parts of it that are BMI are still beholden to MEDRS — Shibbolethink 19:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And the Senate Report doesn't satisfy MEDRS how exactly? 2600:1700:B020:1490:91E3:8F91:C155:7544 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

1) WP:PRIMARY source. 2) WP:BIASED, 3) non-expert, 4) non-peer reviewed, 5) not published in a peer-reviewed journal, 6) heavily criticized by multiple experts from multiple disciplines — Shibbolethink 01:46, 20 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)

Wow! Thanks for all your comments everyone.

The title at the link that I posted has been changed since I posted the link above. This is an archived version with the original titled that I quoted: https://web.archive.org/web/20230417234346/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/04/18/coronavirus-covid-origin-wuhan-lab-us-senate-report/

The new title is "China 'began developing two Covid vaccines' before official outbreak." Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20230419093849/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/04/18/coronavirus-covid-origin-wuhan-lab-us-senate-report/

If this does get added, which title should be cited? Or should both titles be cited?

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't cite headlines; see WP:HEADLINE. And Bon courage's 14:32, 18 April 2023 comment is all that needs to be said in this section. I'm tempted to hat, but not confident enough to do so — DFlhb (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the final version of the Senate Republican report, sourced to ABC News, WP:FRINGE?

We cover the initial interim report. I added a reference to the final version, sourced to ABC news. It was reverted with the comment "Undue/Fringe". Is that appropriate? It was also the subject of an 18-minute video piece by ABC News. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Any good secondary sourcing? for WP:FRINGE ideas we need decent sourcing, right! Bon courage (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

ABC is a secondary source and a good one at that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

In fact no: WP:PRIMARYNEWS applies. We'd need something that provides analysis and synthesis of this political nonsense to count as WP:SECONDARY. Your WP:PROFRINGE spree is not helpful. Bon courage (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

News reporting can be primary, but none of this coverage is. My what now? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is. There is no analysis or synthesis of the WP:FRINGE idea being promulgated. You have repeatedly added this to the article. Bon courage (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess we've either seen different sources or we're going to have to agree to disagree. Even if ABC is a primary source it still wouldn't be promoting a fringe source because ABC is not fringe (coverage of fringe does not make you fringe), the personal attack you've made against me has no basis in reality. We don't have any policy which says to exclude fringe content when its covered by reliable sources, we're actually required to cover it in those scenarios per NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We are bound to omit fringe stuff unless it can be contextualized by the mainstream. That's basic NPOV. You've edit-warred extreme fringe ideas in with an evident WP:BATTLE sensibility. It's not good. Bon courage (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thats exactly what we're doing here, we are letting ABC (the mainstream) contextualize these claims for us. Please focus on content and not editors on the article talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We give no mainstream context. You just edit-warred this stuff in. Bon courage (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand what you mean, can you suggest a version of the text which would fit your desires by including mainstream context? Do you feel that Worobey is not sufficiently mainstream? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

There is none (yet). So policy requires us to omit these extreme fringe idea you're so keen on adding. Bon courage (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The line immediately proceeding says Evolutionary biologist Michael Worobey commented that the document seemed to be either "a cynical effort to try to win Republican votes" in the imminent midterm elections, or "a bunch of staffers with no ability to understand the science who stumbled across a bunch of misinformation and disinformation-filled tweets." Virologist Angela Rasmussen described the report as "an embarrassingly bad use of taxpayer money and resources." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

And then you added content on a different document: you invoke 'the final version of the report' and you added new fringe ideas, about a pre-September-2019 leak, and an anticipatory vaccine. You added this stuff without qualification, repeatedly. Bon courage (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Its the same report. It is indeed qualified... taking the damning with their own words approach which is what the source also does. If you would like to sandwich the material we can, but note that now you're making an argument for more text not no text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a different version. You have uncritically inserted fringe ideas into Misplaced Pages. Not sure what the "damning with their own words approach" is? Is it the idea that WP:PROFRINGE edits are okay because savvy readers will see though the woo? Bon courage (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Pulling the quote "preponderance of circumstantial evidence" is clearly not supporting the fringe theory, if the phrase "preponderance of circumstantial evidence" doesn't make you chuckle I don't know what does. Please stop with the personal attacks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It does seem to be the section is pretty clear that this report is not backed by the scientific community, I am unsure what the objectiion is. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You think it's okay to relay uncritically the idea that the Chinese were developing a vaccine for COVID-19 before the pandemic? Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We do not. In fact I can see quite a bit if criticism in the paragraph. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Of the vaccine idea? I think not. Bon courage (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

So by all means remove that then, as that seems to be pure speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it should stay, Slatersteven? Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That part of it I think is dubious, and most likely should not be there, yes. But not the blanket removal of the whole passage. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're happy with uncritically relaying the idea there could have been a "leak" before September 2019 too? That's - pretty amazing. Bon courage (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Given the amount we say before and that the initial report was roundly condemned by experts, yes. I am unsure our readers are that stupid. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

And given this is explicitly about a different version of the report? What we have at the moment looks like a later text came out with new 'bombshell' revelations - which is precisely the FRINGE narrative being pushed. Bon courage (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have raised a query on this at WP:FT/N. I am concerned about uncritically relaying FRINGE idea from weak sources, without the necessary context we need for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Also covered by the WSJ. Full text available here . Adoring nanny (talk) Adoring nanny (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it maybe time to allow others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I failed to chip in myself. I believe ABC News is a perfectly good source, not weak. Also, if it is of interest, the underlying Senate report is available here.. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Reliable sources reporting on fringe beliefs doesn't stop them from being fringe beliefs. Indeed, it's the precondition for our saying anything about those fringe beliefs. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that who determines what is a fringe belief, the CCP? Qualifying an opinion as "wrong" PER SE is the most unscientific thing I've ever seen in my life. And more so when now it is the same official sources that were used during the Covid pandemic that affirm this. There are two options, either that criterion was wrong all this time, or the current criterion is wrong Armando AZ (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Lots of opinions are "wrong": e.g. COVID is not caused by 5G masts and is not cured by injecting bleach. In Misplaced Pages parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. So the ideas in play here are fringe. Policy requires us to state how experts have reacted to such nonsense, or else omit it entirely. This is not negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The error is precisely in you when comparing this with those theories. Also, if you are going to use arguments from authority, keep in mind that not everyone shares the same "reliable" authorities (there are even those of us who do not have any authority such as infallible). But in the same way, and based on these arguments, the state authorities are in the second rank in terms of reliability, closely followed by the media, so the information and conclusions they give are relevant according to the tradition followed by Misplaced Pages in recent years.

Basically, you compared the Washington Post and the United States Congress to InfoWars. Armando AZ (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has fairly a well-established consensus for what constitutes reliable sourcing. For science, politicians and lay source are poor. For fringe notions (like the idea a COVID vaccine was in development in 2019) there are non-negotiable requirements about how the silly stuff is presented. And no, we don't "let the reader decide": Misplaced Pages presents accepted, mainstream knowledge and puts the put into anti-knowledge. This is a feature not a bug. Bon courage (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

So what do you have to say about this article?https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02833-6/fulltext It says it clearly there, both The Lancet and the WHO consider the laboratory leak hypothesis as "just as valid as other theories", that is, it is a hypothesis that at the time of writing this article was considered a scientifically valid hypothesis . Furthermore, since this is an investigation into the origin of the virus, it is something that involves political authorities, not just scientists. Which is why your evidence counts.

Lastly, the natural origin story is currently benefiting the most from the Chinese Communist Party government, who obviously do not want to take any responsibility and instead blame the United States for causing the virus. Therefore, by ignoring this investigation, a political action is being committed for the indirect benefit of a dictatorship. (Finally, say that the same scientific consensus on Covid has changed a lot over the years, so it is not a very valid argument, especially if we are talking about a not purely scientific matter.) Armando AZ (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages cannot help what the best sources say, it merely reflects them. An old comment piece in The Lancet is not a good source for anything much. Bon courage (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02833-6/fulltext
This article is not peer-reviewed. It has no peer review submission or received date. Meaning it was probably received the same day it was published. We know Horton is the editor-in-chief at the Lancet, meaning it was not likely reviewed by anyone. I see no matters of education, professional experience, etc. explaining why Horton would be considered to have expertise on matters of virology, biosafety, or investigations. These are all major red flags for this being an unreliable source. — Shibbolethink 16:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a comment piece so covered by WP:RSEDITORIAL. So probably not reliable for statements of fact. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Qualifying an opinion as "wrong" PER SE is the most unscientific thing I've ever seen in my life This is a false belief pretty common among laypeople. Actually, science calls things wrong all the time. That's its job. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Here from FT/N and came here to say what Bon courage and XOR'easter said. The fact that a fringe source is talked about in reliable sources does not mean anyone gets to parrot its claims uncritically on Misplaced Pages. This looks like pretty standard pro-fringe tendentious editing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Rather amazing in its unremarkability. XOR'easter (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Here from RSN Telegraph thread, but saw this. It's the same situation, ABC is a reliable source for what the report states but not for saying the report is true. Wording would need to take that into account. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I am going to suggest something, since I see that this discussion is going to take quite a long time, it is best to duly indicate that it is about the investigation of the American Congress, that is, to indicate the source. In this way, it is at the discretion of the reader whether or not to accept this information as true. That seems to me a better roadmap in this new phase of Covid. We already know what can be argued on the Chinese side that the United States may have interests that bias the investigation, but it is not Misplaced Pages's job to change or modify the sources. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Chinese also claim that the virus is artificial, but that it came out of Canada.

On the other hand, I think all the "conspiracy theorists" who said that deserve an apology, hahaha Armando AZ (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about an investigation, that would be Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. This article is about a (conspiracy) theory, and some of the whacky stuff the lableak believers have come up with. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This is all bullshit. Elected politicians are just some group of people randomly chosen for their white teeth, pretty hair, and other superficialities, and their opinions are entirely irrelevant to scientific questions. If they are American Republicans, it is even worse: what they say is very likely to be the opposite of what science says. Bolding "American Congress" as if they had any authority will not change that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the investigation is also being carried out by Democrat politicians. Besides this discussion was closed a long time ago and I basically replied because I didn't know. Armando AZ (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Any mention of something that is a minority view scientificly need to be balanced by the majority view. Just mentioning the report uncritically would give a false balance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The majority scientific view is that a lab leak is plausible, but there's not enough evidence to tell for sure - largely because of Chinese non-cooperation. The congressional report is not at odds with that, and there's no balancing to be done. Sennalen (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is saying that there was a lab leak. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

majority scientific view is that a lab leak is plausible People keep claiming this, but when asked to give evidence for it, all they have comes far short of "plausible". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, from the WP:BESTSOURCES, e.g. the "critical review" piece in Cell, what we have is that the scientific community considers the Lab leak to be the least likely explanation, without any evidence in favor of it being true."Plausible" is not a very NPOV way of construing that consensus. — Shibbolethink 15:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The position of the WHO, numerous US intelligence agencies, and several top public health officials is that both the lab leak and zoonosis scenarios are plausible and worthy of further investigation. Some of these believe the lab leak is the more likely origin scenario.

The scientific consensus could be summarised as "there isn't enough information, both scenarios remain on the table".

See for example: https://news.sky.com/story/who-says-all-theories-for-covid-origin-remain-on-table-as-lab-leak-theory-gains-traction-12824769 PieLover3141592654 (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

numerous US intelligence agencies
A minority of US intelligence agencies*We don't use Sky.com reports to determine what the scientific consensus is. See: WP:MEDSCI — Shibbolethink 23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sky News UK is a RS. See:WP:RSP.

In any case, the point was the quote from the WHO that "all hypotheses on the origins of the virus remain on the table". The position of the World Health Organisation is clearly relevant to the discussion on scientific consensus.

(To your first point, it was in fact ALL the intelligence agencies asked to look into this that determined the lab leak scenario was plausible, hence the 'low confidence' assessment of those that assessed a lab origin is more likely.) PieLover3141592654 (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that should say "hence the 'low confidence' assessment of those that assessed a zoonosis origin is more likely" PieLover3141592654 (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sky News UK is a RS For journalistic subjects, not for scientific ones. See WP:RS (The reliability of a source depends on context) and WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's clearly a reliable source for reporting the words of the WHO. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Saying that is was plausible is saying that there is some possibility (however small) that it happened, not that it's the most likely option or anything but the least likely option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not the usual meaning. See : Today the word plausible usually means "reasonable" or "believable,"

The term you are looking for is "theoretically possible". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Axios analysis re: US Senate minority staff report

Axios provides excellent analysis of the Senate report via a virologist.

We have two options: either quote a short statement from the virologist, and discard the rest; or cover the report's arguments in more detail, and the critical analysis in more detail too. I expect people here will prefer the former, but I think the latter is far more informative. DFlhb (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Well if nothing else it's an excellent illustration of why Axios isn't Misplaced Pages – the entire article is low a showpiece of the WP:FALSEBALANCE fallacy. Bon courage (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

A little too much, yes; but they do systematically contrast each claim with an expert rebuttal, and give the expert the last word, which is more than most news source do on these kinds of topics. I guess my expectations for lay press are pretty indulgent. DFlhb (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I would support a quote from this piece from Rasmussen who is a recognized expert on these topics. But delving too deep in detail is likely UNDUE. But I WOULD support a sentence like: Rasmussen characterized the report's notion that "blah blah blah" as unfounded and speculative". That kind of framing is probably DUE if other sources also cover "blah blah blah". Just not the full and complete depth of the Axios article. They're writing a debunking, we're writing an encyclopedia. — Shibbolethink 16:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

They wrote a fairly strong case for a lab leak and appended some weak grasping at straws by Rasmussen, so a good model of how to cover the issue in Misplaced Pages. Sennalen (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

US Intelligence agencies

Determining the origin of a pandemic is not the exclusive province of scientists. It involves the state authorities, non-state authorities, journalists, etc. Exactly the same as when a crime is committed. If the virus escaped from a laboratory (which is a valid scientific hypothesis), clearly that means someone developed it, and this is no longer a matter for science or scientists, it is something that is beyond the field of study.

The only thing that scientists can say is how likely or not it is that they believe it could happen, but if a government investigation determines that this was indeed the case, this is beyond what scientists and doctors can say about it (the matter then changes to a political and legal dilemma). Armando AZ (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is, science is science. If congress tomorrow found the earth was flat, ships would not suddenly fall of the edge. Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

For example, the issues of "who released the virus?" "how did he get away?" "It was an accident?" All these questions cannot be answered from the field of virology, serious research is needed in this regard. Armando AZ (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I answer you here so as not to spoil the format. As I said in the comment above, these questions cannot be answered from the specific field of virology, therefore, other types of investigations and other types of experts are required to reach a conclusion in this regard (the Pentagon seems to me a good choice). Believing that science, or in this case virology, can investigate things that are outside its field is called "scientism", and it is not something that is very popular in academia. We could argue whether or not what the Department of Defense does is science (as part of "criminology") but I don't think that is the issue. Armando AZ (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Use scientific sources sources for the science, and other reliable sources for not-science. This has been discussed at (extreme) length already. Bon courage (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me for not handling English well. According to the April 18 Telegraph article which is mentioned above, American intelligence does not have a consensus on the matter. However, as I read in this article in El País, in March President Biden authorized the declassification of all the documents referring to Covid-19 and the disease that the Pentagon has at the request of Congress, so the report has documentation from the intelligence services to the best of my knowledge. Therefore, it is indirectly validated by the intelligence agency. Armando AZ (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Here I found information about the intelligence services, in general they support the lab leak theory: https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-part-2-hearing-wrap-up-intelligence-community-officials-provide-further-evidence-that-covid-19-originated-in-a-wuhan-lab/ Armando AZ (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. This is covered in the "Intelligence agencies" section. And you're focusing on one country only (the US). Bon courage (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, the answers I gave were for the other user (in the same way, the order of these was broken a long time ago). Armando AZ (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage I think even so the beginning could change. It could be mentioned at least something about the investigations that are being carried out. Armando AZ (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

If the US department of defense published a report saying the world is flat, we would have to balance that with the scientific view that it's round. To do so would be a false balance. Nothing in the report makes a lab leak anything more than a minority view scientificly, and so any mention of it must be correctly balanced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically if the lab leak didn't happen than all that's being investigated is shadow and whispers, and doesn't have any real meaning. It only has meaning if the lab leak happened, and that is a science issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

If you see it from criminology, it is true. But there is nothing in virology that can tell us for sure where the virus came from. There is still discussion about which animal species the virus jumped from to humans. The only thing that comes to mind now in this regard is the speed or sequence of the mutations, with which it is possible to track how many times the virus mutated and therefore, together with other data, more or less trace its path to the present. But from what I have read so far, the investigations by this means are not conclusive either, (there is even a theory that the virus could not have come out of Wuhan but from the surrounding rural areas, but this is not supported by all scientists).

On the side of physical or circumstantial evidence, field research becomes important here, because determining, for example, whether or not a laboratory had a strain of a virus is something that you have to find out on the ground, or have some kind of documentary or archival evidence. You cannot determine it in a laboratory thousands of kilometers away. That is why the work of intelligence agencies such as the Pentagon becomes important, since the Chinese government has not facilitated the investigation in this regard. And I'm talking about the origin of the virus or the pandemic, not whether it was modified or not. That is a relevant issue but not the core of this matter. Armando AZ (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It's still smoke and mirrors, even if a laboratory had a virus it's still not proof that it was leaked. Everything being "proven" is just circumstantial evidence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The investigation into the origins of COVID is exactly that: an investigation. An investigation into whether or not an industrial accident took place.

Obviously that involves science. But answering the question necessitates drawing on the expertise of other professionals as well, particularly those with experience of investigations such as intelligence agencies and investigative journalists. This is even more the case as the alleged industrial accident took place in a country ruled by an authoritarian regime.

For example, scientists are not the best people to obtain and assess intelligence around what was happening in China immediately before and after the outbreak, which is clearly relevant to the origins investigation. And they may not be aware of all the relevant facts of the investigation, because that's not their job. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The has been discussed ad nauseam (even with a huge RfC). The consensus is that biomedical stuff requires biomedical sourcing, nob-biomedical stuff doesn't. That consensus is not going to change so why editors keep picking away at this or arguing against straw men, baffles the mind. Bon courage (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I'm aware of the RfC and in agreement with the consensus that non-biomedical sources are relevant for the non-biomedical aspects of the investigation. It

It's others that are arguing that non-scientists have nothing to cont.ebate. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That is a strawman. However in any realistic case scientific sources and science are central and necessary to any pronouncement about viral origin (for this or any virus); at most other, lay, sources would be able to touch in minor details around that. Bon courage (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Writing suggestion to the lead re: intelligence agencies

@Bon Courage You're right, the matter should be settled here. I only suggest that the main page mention the investigations and opinions of the intelligence services, since it has become clear that they have something to say about it (This is a different talk). Armando AZ (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• See Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#United States government. Bon courage (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

We already include that content in this article. — Shibbolethink 00:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Only the scientific version of the matter is given (in the beginning), that is not correct since it is not only a scientific hypothesis, but also a investigation hypothesis by state autorities. Armando AZ (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the content of the body based on what is most DUE inclusion and prominence. Per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SOURCETYPES, Misplaced Pages relies on scholars and scientists to determine what that is, not news reporters. News sources are considered of a lower quality and less prominent and reliable than scholarly peer-reviewed publications. It appears you want to change that consensus, and you should propose a change like that at somewhere like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy), not this local talk page. — Shibbolethink 23:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Edits to the lead re: High-ranking intelligence officers

I put in the following text:

Despite the consensus of virologists that virologists were not responsible for the pandemic, diplomatic intelligence officers such as former American Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe have asserted that the virus most likely did originate in a laboratory.

References

1. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5066779/user-clip-director-national-intelligence-john-ratcliffe-makes-case-covid-leaked-wuhan-lab

This was summarily reverted with the edit summary "not really".

This is balanced, WP:DUE, and appropriate. It should be re-introduced into the lead. Red Slash 18:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

A bit dishonest not to mention you tried to edit-war this in, and the first time the WP:ES gave the reason. So yeah, don't do that. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's reason enough to reject it. Armando AZ (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case you need to read at least MOS:LEDE, WP:GEVAL and WP:PSTS, as well as WP:OR and WP:EW. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for featuring made-up nonsense. Bon courage (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I tried to "edit-war" it in?

In Bon Courage's world, I guess "any two edits I disagree with = edit war". The history is right here. That's not an edit-war at all.

You are blindly asserting that the lab leak theory is fringe, with no basis at all. Woohoo, a bunch of virologists decided in 2020 that Covid didn't happen because of virologists. Now people who actually study things like this, high-ranking diplomatic intelligence officials, are saying "actually, looks likely that there was a lab leak that was quickly covered up". It's not a fringe theory. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not original research. And you keep blindly asserting that it is fringe, and using that to edit-war and bludgeon anything that runs contrary to your agenda. Red Slash 22:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You're the editor making stuff up based on poor sources and continually adding it to the lede. You are aware this is a WP:CTOP so that is especially disruptive behaviour. Bon courage (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the position of the US intelligence community should be used in the opening paragraph. That said, there are multiple issues with the proposed wording. The "despite" portion is wrong. I forget which policy it is, but you should not create a contrast like that. Also, "asserted" is wrong per MOS:SAY. Finally, per WP:NPOV, we can't just mention the portions of the intel community that believe it was LL. It would be better to say that the intel community is split, which it is, because portions believe it was zoonosis. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there a citation within the last six months where significant members of the intelligence community said they believe it wasn't from a lab? Your other concerns are well-noted. Red Slash 22:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

so is your argument is that they need to continually say their assessment or else we discount it? That doesn't really jive with our policies and guidelines. We take the assessments made in RSes at face value, such as that the majority of intelligence agencies (and the national intelligence council) support the zoonotic theory as the most likely. If they wanted to revise their assessment, they would have done so and it likely would have been provided in the DNI's revised summary about the DoE that was recently leaked to the press.We report what our RSes say, we don't selectively pick the RSes and agencies we like and put them forth as the current consensus. Many if not most of the RSes about the DoE mention the other agencies that believe the zoonotic theory is the most likely. To report the agents who believe the lab leak is more likely without describing these would be a violation of NPOV and FRINGE. — Shibbolethink 23:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Quite. And we don't add our own personal editorial based on video clips. Bon courage (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't seem due. At least the wording Despite the consensus of virologists that virologists were not responsible for the pandemic would need to something like Despite the scientific consensus that a leak from a laboratory was not responsible for the pandemic, and diplomatic intelligence officers such as former American Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe have asserted that the virus most likely did originate in a laboratory. would need to be something similar to some the United States intelligence officers such as John Ratcliffe have asserted that the virus most likely originated in a laboratory. Also as this is just a US issues it isn't due in the lead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, we are supposed to be short and to the point. We might say something like "The US intelligence community is divided on the lab leak versus zoonosis debate." Brief, does not take sides, and gets the essential fact across. I wouldn't mind including other country assessments; I just don't know what they are. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems like WP:FALSEBALANCE given that the vast majority of the assembled intelligence assets (4 plus the National Intelligence Council vs 2) believe the zoonosis to be the most likely explanation. — Shibbolethink 01:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There were 8 orgs I believe. We have 4 with low confidence in one direction, and one with low and one with moderate in the other direction. I'll grant that 4 > 2, but we also have moderate > low. On top of that, movement is towards the LL side, and the ones of the LL side have more coverage. Obviously one doesn't want to go into all that detail, with various portions of it pointing in various directions. So it's best to just say "divided". Adoring nanny (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources say otherwise. Scientists agree on what's likely happened, evidence is emerging and the lab leak has been declared dead. That some intelligence services in one politically-riven country are dithering about is really irrelevant to Misplaced Pages's mission to report mainstream, accepted knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I support including something brief like this in the lead. It is very relevant to the debate and features heavily in articles about this topic in Reliable Sources.

Biden would not have asked the agencies to investigate the issue if they had no expertise.

If intelligence agencies from other countries express a view one way or the other, I think we should include them to. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:20, 25 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