Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shibbolethink (talk | contribs) at 13:09, 7 August 2021 (brbr). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMedicine: Emergency / Society / Pulmonology C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. 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 articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconViruses C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. 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 articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.



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
    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
    June 2021
    , ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (
    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 ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'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
    WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023
    )
  9. The article
    requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024
    )

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)

Sources

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)[reply]

Scholarship

Journalism

Editorials from scholars

Editorials from journalists

"Accidental lab leak of a natural virus" vs "accidental leak of a modified virus" vs "intentional bioweapon"

We need to include all three of these in this article, because all of these, except 'intentional bioweapon' are easily described as part of a "lab leak" in the common vernacular. The bioweapon theory must be differentiated from this hypothesis, so it merits a small inclusion in this article as well.

We cannot continue to muddy these terms any further, and when we discuss them here, we really need to be very specific. Or else this article descends into the fate of basically every other COVID-19 origins article, namely arguing past each other for paragraphs and paragraphs. Differentiation of these things is key, and including discussion of all of them is key. See also a similar discussion at the COVID-19 wikiproject.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Those are very different things. Option 1 implies zoonotic/natural origin of the virus. In fact, all pathogens ever leaked from labs (even labs involved in bioweapons programs in the USSR) had natural origin. There is a huge confusion in publications about this with regard to COVID-19. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree quite strongly with Shibbolethink in this matter. jp×g 02:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting my agreement too. If we're going to have an article on this, we must make the difference clear (as, however, is also already done, if a bit clumsily, at COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_origin). There's likely also something that can be found on the confusion between the different hypotheses itself - there's this where the author writes that

The risk of conflation is not simply due to the audience’s inattentiveness. It also results from how the lab-leak theory has previously been reported. Until recently, it was itself categorised as a conspiracy theory. In early March 2020, for instance, a widely circulated open letter published in The Lancet condemned as “conspiracy theories” all hypotheses suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t have a natural origin. This meant it was lumped together with the idea that the virus was deliberately created as a biological weapon. In turn, this creates problems when politicians later try to rehabilitate the lab-leak theory: if one supposed conspiracy theory turned out to be credible, some might wonder whether other related conspiracy theories might be credible too.

Of course, how much weight is DUE for this is another question, but sources exist is what I'm saying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually two additional lab leak related theories which are not captured, ref:[3]. The first being a deliberate infection of a natural virus. The second, somewhat a variation of the accidental lab leak of a natural virus but implying not so much a "leak" but rather indirectly the relocation of collected of live bats and bat-related samples to Wuhan by the WIV contributed to a natural spillover event in Wuhan indirectly; inadvertently aided by the WIV. For all these five different theories, it is important to weight the RELATIVE evidence of each and every theory against it's alternatives, rather than simply to weight scientific publications sprouting

WP:RS. There is for example, overwhelming improbability of the spillover event occuring at the wet-market which the PRC blamed; especially given limited sale of bats[4] and the immediate coverup of other facts by the WIV and PRC; for example around the mis-sequencing of samples[5] and access to WIV databases[6]. Whilst many lab leak theories either are (or border on) being unsubstantiated conspiracies it's no less ridiculous than the wet-market story [7] which somehow still remains in WP mainspace despite being completely unsubstantiated... PRC information operatives at play perhaps? Aeonx (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

"The first being a deliberate infection of a natural virus." Is there a reliable source you can point to which considers this a credible possibility? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could and the nature article I referenced already includes this as one of the possibilities. However I'm not going to. Why? Because I loathe to descent this talk page into a discussion about what is and isn't

WP:DUE
before we've even established the various scope and aspects that are reported. As I already mentioned, all of these ideas are theories, so you're question about credibility should first be clarified. What is credible when it comes to limited information and the possible presence of deliberate cover-up and misinformation?

There are ongoing issues that seem to mean that some totally ludicrous and in-credible origin stories about Wet-Market exist in mainspace and I dare say the same standard of credible

WP:RS has not been followed, instead relying on news reports and PRC reporting, which we know is historically manipulative. Aeonx (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

"news reports and PRC reporting"? I didn't know that American
WP:NEWSORG (such as CNN, WSJ, NYT, WaPo, et al.) - the same kind of sources that have been reporting on the lab leak in a more positive light than serious scholarship - were "PRC reporting": you might want to make sure your arguments actually make sense and are not just vague insinuations and subtle personal attacks? Wikipedia is neither a battleground nor a debating society. On the other hand, you're always free to suggest additional scholarly sources (the same kind on which much of this is based) to improve the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Scientific background section needed

Whether this article stays, or is merged, or deleted, we should add a "scientific" background section as we've done at

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
. This is necessary for the following reasons:

  1. Readers can't understand or evaluate the lab leak concept on scientific terms if the concept isn't introduced within the context of current scientific understanding and consensus on the virus' origins.
  2. The scientific background text that derives from SARS-CoV-2 is the most carefully written and researched text that we have on this topic at Wikipedia.
  3. There have been a number of articles that have popped up trying to discuss this topic in a manner that relies on the popular press rather than scientific literature. Forcing these articles to include the actual science is the best defense against misinformation.

I've tried to start this but the task is quite daunting because transclusion isn't simple. User:Yadsalohcin, User:RandomCanadian, I believe you may have helped with the transclusion process in the past, and User:Diannaa you had suggestions about how to do this without violating copy / attribution requirements. -Darouet (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion is not an appropriate solution, because the full section there is not relevant enough for here. Writing actual prose is fine. You can attribute just by giving the title of the page and saying to check its page history for attribution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've always liked {{Excerpt}} for article transclusions. Prevents duplicate effort writing and maintaining. I know of no copyright issues with this well-used template. Maybe consider a version of the following code: 
{{Excerpt|Investigations into the origin of COVID-19|Scientific background|subsections=yes}}
There may be other pieces we can transclude too. Or in the long run, maybe we have other articles transclude this one. I'm undecided, just throwing out ideas. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That section is way too long and only a few paragraphs there are relevant background. It would be better to summarise the relevant parts here and then add a {{
main article}} at the top of the section to go to the full one. See: Wikipedia:Summary style ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:UNDUE.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Scientific background section
WP:UNDUE
?

What is the Scientific background section about? Is it the scientific background of this hypothesis or scientific background about

WP:UNDUE, especially as an entire section. Most sources covering the lab leak hypothesis already acknowledge that the virus has a natural reservoir and we don’t need an entire section about it. I could say the same thing about the scientific section of the investigations article. If we have a scientific background here, it should be on the hypothesis, just like on Solutrean hypothesis, and other hypothesis pages. Francesco espo (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:UNDUE content? CutePeach (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
CutePeach - you're arguing that what scientists know about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should receive little to no coverage at this page, which is supposed to be about one idea of the virus' origins. If we follow your advice, the article will perfectly mislead readers: omit the scientific consensus on SARS-CoV-2 origins as WP:UNDUE, and therefore present the opinion of a fringe or extreme minority without the counterbalance of the fields of biology, virology, infectious disease ecology, etc.
WP:DUE requires that we present views according to their weight. Since we're talking about a scientific issue - the origin of this virus - we need to reflect all scientific views proportionally to their acceptance by scientists. That means we can write an entire article about the lab leak idea, but most viewpoints expressed are going to be highly skeptical ones by scientists who explain why the idea is "extremely unlikely." Part of any such explanation is showing why a natural zoonosis is far more likely. Everyone wins in the end, since readers who come to learn about this topic will learn a lot about SARS-CoV-2 ecology and origins. -Darouet (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say natural zoonosis is far more likely, which is a problem. You must distinguish between the origins of zoonotic virus and the origins of the human virus, and how the former became the latter. The hypothesis is focused on how the former became the latter through a possible laboratory or occupationally acquired infection.
If there was a scientific consensus, we wouldn't even have this page. Any proclaimed scientific consensus is based entirely on the WHO report commissioned by the WHO DG who has critiqued its findings. The "scientific consensus" claim doesn't belong here or any other article on Wikipedia.
WP:DUE pertains to the subject of the page, and the subject of this page is the lab leak hypothesis, and our readers expect us to cover the subject accordingly. CutePeach (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CutePeach: WP:DUE pertains to the subject of the page, and the subject of this page is the lab leak hypothesis, and our readers expect us to cover the subject accordingly. DUE applies both to the existence of the page, and how we cover it in the article. Just because we agree it's DUE to have its own article, doesn't mean the content on the page can't be UNDUE. The relevant sections of the policy follow:
Extended content
WP:DUE
: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader.
WP:GEVAL
: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
I hope that makes the policy concerns more clear, so we can all be on the same page of why we describe the mainstream view first, and the level of acceptance of the lab leak theory. Note the main goal above: "avoid misleading the reader". Hopefully that puts us on the same page to have more fruitful discussion on how extensive the descriptions of the mainstream and minority views are, and which aspects of each require which kind of treatment. There are definitely aspects of a lab leak which have significantly more acceptance as a possibility (WHO-evaluated possibility: collection of a relatively unchanged bat virus) than others (intentional development of a bio-weapon). Bakkster Man (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THIRD opinion from JPxG or SMcCandlish, or anyone else on this page. CutePeach (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:THIRD, which is a specific process involving uninvolved users who have not interacted with this content or its editors. What you have asked for is a POV opinion. Please do not do this again. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not canvassing since we're already part of the discussion. But Shibbolethink is correct that persons already part of the discussion can't do WP:THIRD. Which isn't binding anyway. I also agree this is a good dispute for ArbCom to address, as part of a long series of DUE, FRINGE, and PoV conflicts over similarly "real-world-heated" disputes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
For the reader: I think the scientific background provides useful contextual information to introduce what is known about the virus's origins. And as a practical and social matter, I doubt you'd be able to write an article like this without Wikipedia controversy if it were excluded. An article solely explaining the lab leak would be unacceptable to many. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader, yes, agreed that this is one of the main ways in which we avoid this article becoming a POVFORK.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NOLABLEAK
advocates appended "or TNT" to their "Delete" votes in the MFD - and now they insert "Scientific background", supposedly to provide what you call useful contextual information to introduce what is known about the virus's origins.
If we wanted to "introduce what is known about the virus's origins", we would provide information that is relevant in context to the lab leak hypothesis, as what is "known" and "not known" on COVID-19 origins is a matter of dispute between scientists. When mentioning the "smoking gun" claim about the Furin Cleavage Site that Nicholas Wade’s BOAS piece attributed to David Balitmore [9], then we should also provide his later clarifications from newer sources [10][11], so as to provide a
WP:OPINIONs, and not what is "known". When we mention Mike Worobey’s analysis of the Wuhan maps in NPR [12], then we should also mention the reported map data errors in the WHO’s report as reported by Eva Dou in WaPo [13] [14]
. In this way the information is actually contextual.
However, the "Scientific background section" as it is now gives the impression - falsely - that there is already an accepted scientific consensus on all aspects of the origins of this zoonotic virus and the mechanism by which it spilled over into humans. Do you see such a section in Anthropocene or any of the other hypothesis pages JPxG mentioned here [15]? CutePeach (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:POVFORK then that would imply it presents the POV of only one group of scientists and editors, which is not something I have advocated. We should provide alternative POVs for WP:BALANCE, where they are WP:DUE, using WP:INTEXT attribution. I am writing a draft on the similarly notable DuPont PFOA dumping scandal adhering to the same principles, and I don’t anticipate any problems with that. CutePeach (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:DUE, I shouldn't have to explain why that needed to be fixed (and requires additional fixes). And, more to the point, it should be readily apparent why your edits could easily be perceived as POV pushing. Two out of three claims lacked peer review, and there was no mention made to the alternate explanations of the things the authors claimed. Consider more thorough initial edits and/or self-tagging the section as needing expansion if you hope to avoid the perception that your edits are pushing a POV. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
It's clearly not a PoV fork; it's a
WP:ADVICEFORK :-).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
To clarify, my POVFORK concerns are mostly alleviated, seeing the direction recent edits have taken. This should be a SPINOFF article, but there's some point (about which there's probably some disagreement where exactly that threshold is) where we would have so little framing relative to other explanations that it could become a POVFORK. That's the thing I'm hoping we can avoid, and some of the above comments seemed to be potentially pushing us in that wrong direction. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some previous revisions and drafts had legitimate POVFORK concerns but that is also not a current concern with the current article for me. —PaleoNeonate – 21:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientific background should be renamed to something else. The information there is valid and should be in the article. Dream Focus 12:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I Support a "Background" section. Oppose a "scientific background" section, because the rest of the article is equally scientific so the distinction is undue. Also, in the background section where we describe the degree of uncertainty and the quality of the evidence, I oppose any use of the following terms: "consensus", "vast majority". If pressed to produce an adjective for the natural origin, we can go with "the explanation favored by most experts on coronaviruses", or "the prevailing hypothesis given the limited evidence", instead. Forich (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forich, as before, I don't really see much of a difference between those options and any "consensus wording" except I wouldn't use weasel-y terms like "given the limited evidence." It's not really fair to characterize the natural origin as having "limited evidence," for example.
We have a great deal of evidence for the natural origin (similar viruses found in animals, a phylogenetic lineage building over time, etc). When compared to investigations into the origins of Ebola ([16] , SARS-1 ([17] [18]), etc. this is actually pretty good. It's the beginning of a natural lineage tracing, with very similar sequences recently discovered in bats [19] (narrowing in on the phylogenetic path the virus evolved through), and a reasonable timeline for emergence ([20] [21]). It really isn't "limited evidence." I would say we have "extremely limited evidence" for the lab leak origin (all circumstantial, inferential, based on supposition), but the same cannot be said for the natural origin.
I also don't think these are competing hypotheses, as we've discussed before. Right now, the natural origin is explaining how the virus evolved to its current state genetically and zoologically (further casting doubt on any artificial genomic engineering, etc), but the "accidental leak of a natural virus" is just supposition based upon guesses. It's only that the WIV is in Wuhan. I know of no other actual "evidence." And it isn't incompatible with a naturally evolved virus.
All of which to say, we should probably use phrasing like "The prevailing hypothesis favored by most experts is that of a natural origin in bats." That's what our high quality RSes are telling us, from the list at the top of this page. Also, it doesn't bother me at all if we say "Background" instead of "Scientific background." Tomato tomato.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like "Scientific background" as a heading; all of the background information we provide in a "background" section should be scientific. If need be we can have a "background of mass-media coverage" section separately. That said, this article absolutely must include some background on what COVID is and why people are concerned with its origins. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with 力 and with Forich.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink:, its a pleasure editing collaboratively with people like you. I can understand where you are coming from, and I value that you have trained in science and know much more than all of us in these areas. I've presented my points before that some areas of the origin have lots of evidence and are considered conclusive, while some other areas have limited evidence. It's hard to summarize the status of the evidence for the origin as a whole, and we should be careful. I'll try not to nitpick too much on it, maybe your proposals are the best compromise. Bakkster Man and Alexbrn are also excellent editors to get the correct picture of the evidence in the medical literature, I trust we'll be ok. Forich (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Forich: Appreciate the shoutout, and back at you. As I've said elsewhere, in a topic as potentially contentious and disputed as this one the most productive course of action is collaborative consensus, and I'm grateful to have you participating. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furin cleavage site

There needs to be some discussion of the genetic arguments that COVID-19 was designed here, I think? Specifically arguments such as Nicholas Wade's arguments about the furin cleavage site? I haven't looked into this in enough depth to want to write the whole thing unassisted, but my brief analysis has suggested that MEDRS sources are pretty clear that Wade (and others) are simply incorrect here regarding the importance of the CGG codon, and the text will need to make that clear. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we should include a discussion of it, but only where it is covered (and how it is covered) in reliable secondary sources. Examples from the sources list at the top of this talk page: [22] [23] [24] [25]
We need those secondary RSes to tell us how to frame our discussion of the Wade piece and couch it in the mainstream scientific view that they source from other primary sources (scientists, articles, etc). Sorry, I want to make clear I think you probably agree with me on this, just wanted to put it out there. :) --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot the paper by Frutos, which explicitly addresses the claims about the "uncommon" codons and many others; and there's also the discussion that was had here for sources about the FCS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, Ah yes thank you, that is an important source I forgot they talked about it as well. Agree Frutos et al. should be in the mix here. Here's the link: [26].--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent pre-adaptation

It appears strange since the studied virus was first extracted from infected humans. It was obviously adapted enough to be transmissible among humans and there's nothing suspicious about that. The search for the animal origin is still ongoing and it's expected that years may be needed to discover that source. —PaleoNeonate – 18:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This section definitely needs a lot more work. The question to answer is "why did the pandemic spread so quickly from first identification?" There's two answers. One is that it was circulating and adapting to humans undetected (possibly because it wasn't causing severe illness due to the lack of adaptation, or just because mild to moderate symptoms are common) long enough to adapt before it was noticed, another is that it adapted in lab culture. Thing is, the latter explanation has only one peer-reviewed study making the claim (and it was a computer modeling study), while the former has lots of reliable sources. It shouldn't be hard to make that clear, but it might require more of a hatchet being taken to the section. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE in this subsection, and we should not use a reason that Colin described as a red-herring to remove it. CutePeach (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I have
WP:UNDUE concerns about the "apparent pre-adaption" section. I was waiting to see if it improved, but I am not seeing that so far. We may want to think about removing the section. Do we really need 4 paragraphs about 1) an idea that was edited out in peer review, 2) a primary study, and 3) a preprint? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
To echo Novem Linguae, I think this section is wholly undue and based now on improper citations. We cannot have information which depends almost exclusively on preprinted, it runs counter to the ArbCom sanctions. Preprints are not reliable, news reports about preprints are even worse. It’s a game of telephone with unverified and unreviewed findings. We need experts (scientists acting as peer reviewers and summarizers in literature reviews) to tell us how to contextualize these findings. At the moment, neither are included in the sources of this section. If and when better sources are used, it would make sense to include.
There may be some quality sources regarding the pre-Huanan market spread and how it relates to the virus circulating asymptomatically or sub clinically in Hubei province, such that the virus had time to adapt and overcome the “hill” of a new host’s immune system/factors. Much of this is theory based on insufficient evidence, but it has more backing (genetics, epidemiology, contact tracing) than the lab leak version which is almost entirely supposition. As far as I can tell, that is not included very well in the current version. We probably need to thoroughly add that view sourced to RSes and bring RSes for the other views, to become DUE, or delete as UNDUE. Just my 2 cents. —Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Among recent sources I read about it, although not MEDRS and appeared to be plausible coverage, was https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/18/in-hunt-for-covids-origin-new-studies-point-away-from-lab-leak-theory "The claim that Sars-CoV-2 was suspiciously well adapted to humans at the beginning of the pandemic also finds little support. It infects a wide range of species – including cats, dogs, mink, tigers and lions – and if anything has become better adapted to humans over the pandemic, in part through further alterations to the spike protein." and it continues. If things have no support, it may not even be
WP:DUE. However, at least we have such mainstream sources that say it's not credible, meaning that it received some media attention. —PaleoNeonate – 20:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:DUE here than your personal opinions about the hypothesis. Even if the lab leak hypothesis will be disproven, it will be a part of history and we need to describe it for our readers that need to know how things went in any case. --Francesco espo (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:GEVAL indicates we can provide that mainstream rebuttal with similarly strength sources. Which, given the current section, is pretty weak. If it's critical to the theory, bring better sources. If they exist, you find them. Don't throw junk at the wall, and insist others find a way to make it stick. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
No
WP:PAGs
to this page. This is not a warning, just friendly advice.
If you would like to open a
WP:FACTION
and that is not good for our collaboration.
I actually agree with
WP:SECONDARY sources and let our readers make up their own minds about things. CutePeach (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
You're clearly not reading
WP:DUE thoroughly enough. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:PREPRINT? Please self revert. Tagging ToBeFree and DGG. CutePeach (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Arbitration case opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#CutePeach. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I would like the above tagged admins to see the exchange above and I will make my WP:ARE statement tomorrow. CutePeach (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm not endorsing the Dalgleish paper's content, I just found it provided more context. But I don't disagree it can and should follow the same rules regarding preprint status and consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I'm glad you follow my logic, and I do wish you would have given it a few seconds or a minute before reverting. As you will see tomorrow, human pre-adaptation is mentioned in the WHO report, but we can't use it as it is a
WP:BRD is highly vexatious. I am very disappointed in you. CutePeach (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry to disappoint, but what else do you expect from such a contentious topic of discussion? Particularly when attempting to add content sourced primarily by pre-prints to an article under Discretionary Sanctions?
PS: did you still intend to rewrite the NIH SRA paragraph for the Investigations article, or did you intend to ignore it and not let other editors know? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakkster Man: It now looks like CutePeach may — in this current dispute, at least — have been trying to find an acceptable solution by using a combination of responsive editing and good-faith discussion. (The governing policy here would be WP:EDITCONSENSUS.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see what AR/E says, but I would have been more apt to see a good-faith attempt if the response to an edit comment reminding of a requirement to get consensus before re-adding material had been heeded. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, CP's take on my edits is misleading and inaccurate, as always. I didn't add Deiglish's preprint. I don't even link to it. I added a short description, and then criticism of it, all based on independent sources, as required for an article which deals with "notable bullshit". Their persistent targeting of me and others now seems like deliberate harassment, and you know where
I'm heading next with this... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP has an interesting policy that looks like it's meant to address such perceived "targeting" (
not own their edits … and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
In the interest of continuing to build consensus, I thought it might be helpful to further clarify my concerns:
  1. While
    WP:DUE
    specifies circumstances where its requirements are relaxed in a narrowly-focused article like this, it very much still applies. The policy even helpfully describes the kinds of circumstances that justify relaxed scrutiny. I think it will benefit us more to discuss those details of where and how it's applicable or not, than with claims that it has no place informing this article's writing.
  2. This article was created to describe a valid, scientific theory in greater detail than more broad-based articles. As such, we should still follow our policies of
    WP:POVFORK), neither of which I think is correct (with some notable exceptions of highly flawed, politically motivated pre-prints; see Li-Meng Yan‎
    ).
Hopefully this gives us a more productive line of discussion than might get bogged down when linked to a content dispute. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, per WP:SOURCETYPES policy. –Dervorguilla (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dervorguilla....but scholarly sources are preferred. And PREPRINTS is perhaps the most clear part of this. They are not even RSes.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did Alina Chan submit the preprint for publication at a journal? If so, what was the result? Forich (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this still needs work. I noticed that the text didn't correspond to the first citation and its scope so rewrote it, but then it's unclear if it's

WP:DUE, considering that the source doesn't push the idea that a lab leak is likely because of apparent pre-adaptation. It instead advocates for a circulation model paradigm, like various other sources that mention that the virus was likely simply already circulating in populations as a less lethal form earlier than previously suspected... —PaleoNeonate – 23:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Scientific consensus in the lead

This is important and sources exist, but help is welcome to express and source it properly. I have restored it but am not too happy with the current citation batch I hastily used... —PaleoNeonate – 19:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed ad nauseam in many previous discussions on other pages - and the Hakim paper fails verification for this claim, so I have tagged it accordingly. There is no consensus on the origins of the virus, and even the WHO Report - which some here claim represents scientific consensus - has been critiqued by the WHO Director General, the US and 13 other governments, and the European Union. Scientific consensus follows - not precedes - proper investigation.
Furthermore, the blanket statement Some scientists, despite misgivings, agree that more investigation into the origins is warranted also fails verification and requires more citations. Most scientists, including those most vocally against it - like Angela Rasmussen - agree that more investigations including it are warranted [32] [33]. CutePeach (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure its valuable quibbling about wording, as long as both views are represented. We have no way or proving "most",, but also no way or disproving it, so either wording is likely to be in error. The woding "some" does in many cases seem like waffling, but it's better than making judgments. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So some sources that mention this consensus are: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/27/did-covid-come-from-a-wuhan-lab-what-we-know-so-far https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/14/covid-origins-australias-role-in-the-feedback-loop-promoting-the-wuhan-lab-leak-theory
As for the above, there are valid reasons for this consensus. Virology and epidemiology weren't born last year and patterns that were long expected were met, etc. Also, Wikipedia is not into false balance reporting and controversy-fomenting by gallop, there are policies about this. Reliable sources also put things in perspective, which perspective is the one WP must reflect. User:PaleoNeonate/Userboxes/Brainwashing[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 20:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, IRT to a comment in the next closed thread: "This document ... examines the probability that each claim is true to allow the reader to make his or her own conclusions." we hear that all the time and it's not what Wikipedia is about. —PaleoNeonate – 20:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources. CutePeach (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
This is rather vague and does not contradict that most consider a fully natural origin as the most likely, which is mentioned by many sources. You already know this, why the constant urgency to question that despite many sources also highlighting that nothing changed technically, other than public opinion, and that of some scientists that it's also worth investigating other than the natural source? Not-MEDRS but also relevant here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/14/covid-origins-australias-role-in-the-feedback-loop-promoting-the-wuhan-lab-leak-theory "The broad consensus is that it is possible but unlikely that the coronavirus leaked from the lab." —PaleoNeonate – 14:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two valid options:
  1. Stick to journal sources only on this question. There, there is a consensus.
  2. Include news sources. There, there is a dispute on what the scientific consensus is. eg Vanity Fair's investigative piece: The scientific consensus had been smashed to smithereens. [35].
You can find any number of reliable news sources that make statements one way or the other. You can't just pretend the others don't exist. I think option #1 is probably more tenable and accurate. So long as you want to use news sources though, I don't see what's wrong with CP's argument. Then you'd have no policy-based rationale to exclude the RS that claim the contrary. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader, I think the issue here is: "what was Vanity Fair referring to?"
Were they referring to the consensus that the virus was extremely likely not engineered or the consensus that the virus likely has a natural origin or the consensus that the lab leak and related ideas are conspiracy theories?
And, further, what qualifies them to assess that consensus? Per WP policy as cited in the recent ArbE, for scientific theories, we need to assess them via topic-relevant reviews published in reliable peer-reviewed journals. MEDRS, while probably not binding in this case, helps us see that the best quality sources available for biomedical topics are these journal articles I mentioned, but also statements of consensus from medical and governmental regulatory bodies.
These are what we cite to determine the consensus in the relevant articles. Including this one. I see nothing wrong with that... And I don't think that Vanity Fair piece invalidates that. If one surveys the sources provided in the Sources section at the top of this talk page, it's easy to see that even most journalistic sources agree that "most scientists" believe the natural origin explanation is "more likely."--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that at current time there is no mention of consensus left, but it's still expressed in "likely" terms, which seems acceptable. —PaleoNeonate – 18:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoNeonate, yes, I think there is a view commonly held by some editors of this page that "consensus" is too strong a word, that it somehow diminishes the % of scientists who disagree. But it cannot be argued that such views are anything but a minority opinion. I would urge those editors to find evidence that a significant portion of virologists or biosecurity experts believe the lab theory is anything other than "unlikely, but possible." I have not been able to find such evidence, personally. But it is impossible to prove a negative, so we are left with this compromise. As long as we clear what the mainstream view is based on RSes, I'm satisfied...--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Altered timeline of events

FormalDude you altered the timeline of events with your removal of well-sourced content that you call an unsourced description of speculation by social media users that is not encyclopedic [36]. Both the Caixin and BBC Chinese pieces reference these social media users / netizens, and one can argue that in a country where mainstream media is censored, social media should matter. We are not citing the social media content directly, but the UPI, Caixin and BBC Chinese sources. Please restore the content and source you removed so that our readers can know the hypothesis was formed in China by netizens and scientists there, and not in the USA by politicians and conservative media pundits. Perhaps someone here can also add the Feb 6 2020 paper by the Chinese scientist couple Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao, which is well covered in reliable sources [37], as they were, in fact, the first scientists to make the inference, and no one has heard from them since. CutePeach (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CutePeach, the source does not support the claim at all. There's no mention in that article about social media users nor netizens. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 00:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: That source (UPI) discusses Chinese "social media" posts at grafs 13–14 (under Link to lab denied).
The institute had previously denied the outbreak began among lab technicians, including a woman identified as Huang Yanling. Huang was rumored to be "patient zero" on Chinese social media.
Wang's statement came after messages on Chinese social media claimed the director had been "frequently" reselling lab animals to Huanan market vendors.
–Dervorguilla (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serious BLP Violations

WP:BLP
violation. This needs to be removed immediately.

Neither Cotton, nor Pompeo or Trump made such an allegation. There was a discussion on this with Guy Macon here [40] and another discussion with Bakkster Man here [41] [42], clarifying this misconception. The Jan 2021 "Fact Sheet" put out by the USDOS mentioning Secret military activity at the WIV [43], is not an allegation by Pompeo or Trump that the virus was created as a bioweapon. It was a very carefully vetted document that has also cited by the Biden Administration, which we discussed here with Pkeets My very best wishes Thucydides411, Shibbolethink and Bakkster Man [44]. I don't care how we want to present this information, but we definitely should not use it to misprepresent Pompeo and Trump's position.

This is perhaps an innocent mistake by Jr8825, but it is revealing of a bias by certain bias editors who demand to go through the

HighinBC, CaptainEek and El_C. CutePeach (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

My edits were intended to improve the paraphrasing of the source so that the text more closely followed the existing inline citation. See The Conversation; Peter Knight, Professor of American Studies, University of Manchester : "The general lab-leak theory, along with hints that the virus might have been designed as a bioweapon, were promoted by Trump, US senator Tom Cotton, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon. All had previous form in using conspiracy rhetoric to blame America’s woes on enemies without and within." The only issue is that the source does not mention Pompeo, which is my mistake as his name was already in the text previously, I will remove it now. Jr8825 • Talk 18:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, so its still a BLP violation. Please see the sources in the above linked discussions. I really need to go to sleep now. CutePeach (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
How is "Trump and other politicians said X" an exceptional claim? That was widely reported in many sources (whether we want to cite all of these sources, or whether we're satisfied with citing one analysis by an academic, is
WP:REDFLAG makes a nice list of what is an "exceptional statement which requires exceptional evidence". This doesn't seem to be such a kind of statement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps relevant: This one is not about direct claims by Trump or Pompeo, but relevant IRT a previous closed (as in to avoid scrutiny) program https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/25/politics/biden-shut-down-trump-effort-coronavirus-chinese-lab/index.html later determined to have been inconclusive and misguided when evaluated, then the program shut down. And "The State Department project began in late 2020, months after Pompeo and President Donald Trump first claimed that the virus could have originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In May 2020, Pompeo claimed there was "enormous evidence" and a "significant amount of evidence" to support the claim -- despite the US intelligence community saying there was no definitive answer as to precisely where and how the virus began transmitting." It was compared to the Iraq stove pipe by this source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/27/did-covid-come-from-a-wuhan-lab-what-we-know-so-far . I'm not saying that this would necessarily be the first in a timeline if earlier items are also properly documented in independent sources, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding: when well cited to sources considered generally reliable (
WP:BLPRS), it's not a BLP violation to echo them. If those sources are retracted, then other sources should be used or the supported material also removed. —PaleoNeonate – 22:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to further emphasise, if anyone feels they can provide a better summary of the sourcing on this (or are more well-read than me) please go ahead and adjust the sentence accordingly. As I mentioned above, my edits were made from a copy-editing perspective as the previous wording was unclear and grammatically poor, and although I've read a moderate amount, that specific change was very much based on the existing inline refs. Jr8825 • Talk 23:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help much here, Jr8825. This material appears to be a (partly) original interpretation of a source for a contentious allegation about a public figure. Without multiple sources, it needs to get removed, per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPPUBLIC. I also question its prominence of placement (per WP:DUE). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I expect there's plenty of sourcing to support the assertion those figures promoted misinformation, I'm inclined to agree with you here – I'm not certain they're central enough to the lab leak theory to warrant inclusion in the lead (perhaps they are, again, I haven't read sufficiently extensively here). I agree there are potential BLP concerns, although this might be addressable with additional sourcing as PaleoNeonate suggested. Jr8825 • Talk 09:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that we need to be very clear with what we cite, and when the citation is from. As our article describes, while a news article last November might have described the suggestion of an accidental lab leak as "promoting conspiracy theories", that would no longer be the way the source would describe it. As further reason to avoid the lede, it's going to be difficult to lump so many public figures together, particularly when the statements by (for instance) Cotton were very different from the funding and advocacy of Bannon. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text was removed – quite rightly, I think – but this resulted in a complete lack of mention about Trump in the lead (he's discussed quite extensively in the body) and a lack of context for the following sentence. I've re-added parts of the sentence with more conservative wording. Please review/discuss. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: This has been open for just over a week. Since my only comments here were basically telling off an IP for giving their own opinion about how much evidence there is about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, and since I don't really care about the title, I'll give a go at closing this. I'll remind everyone that

this isn't just a headcount
.

Per the

criteria
, a good title is commonly recognisable, including for readers unfamiliar with the topic, precise and concise.

There have been multiple proposals, but relatively little discussion of how they fit with the criteria. Much of the discussion seems to be about which term would be more accurate, but this was also met with concerns about the neutrality of the proposed title. Those concerns are in line with

WP:NDESC
, which suggests staying non-judgmental and avoiding titles like "allegations" (or the very similar "claims").

The two more convincing options, based on this reading of policy, and also reflected in how many editors are supporting either (or both), are either to keep the current title ("hypothesis") or to move this to "theory". Some editors object to "theory" because of implications about the validity of the article subject. This does not seem to

WP:COMMONNAME
, per many editors in the discussion. "Hypothesis" also appears justifiable in light of the criteria, but I don't see the same kind of support for it amongst the participants, nor does it seem that it is as common as the alternative.

Therefore, there is a rough consensus for a move to COVID-19 lab leak theory. I'll hold off on doing the move immediately, in case anybody has some strong objection to this.

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis → COVID-19 lab leak claims – More than a few editors mentioned a rename during the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
.

I would like to propose we keep the page and give it another name: COVID-19 lab leak claims ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 04:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging user who mentioned the title in the AfD discussion (with no expectation to participate, just a courtesy):

previous merge discussion: Hemiauchenia, Dream Focus, ToBeFree. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 01:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Key points:

  1. What should the qualifier be? (Ex: claims/claim, theories/theory, allegations/allegation, etc.)
  2. Should the qualifier be plural or singular?

––FORMALDUDE(talk) 01:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Support claims. Much more neutral and avoids the entire issue re: hypothesis vs. theory and scientific vs. lay definitions. A claim can have mountains of proof, or no proof at all. It is perhaps one of the most neutral ways to describe this.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth considering if we can avoid a term entirely and just use
    COVID-19 lab leak as the title. Assuming not, I'm neutral regarding "hypothesis" v. "theory", and "claims" or "suggestion" or "discussion" aren't much worse than those first two. "Conspiracy theory" is blatantly inappropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "Disinformation" is also blatantly inappropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DUE aspects correctly imo. We need a name that demonstrates that we are talking about all the relevant leak ideas not just one such idea.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hmm yes, it's a similar problem with "COVID-19 China cover-up", —PaleoNeonate – 02:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very tempted to agree that it should be "hypotheses" or "theories" over a singular, as there are multiple different theories/hypotheses discussed in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't appear to all be valid, however, to use "hypothesis" or "theory" to describe all of them... —PaleoNeonate – 02:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's certainly disagreement regarding whether "hypothesis" or "theory" or both or neither imply that the claims are true. I don't feel either word implies truth, yet I will not claim that consensus is with me. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No official statement from me yet, but it's tricky: COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory is another relevant name, COVID-19 lab leak disinformation fits for what some have done, both are very political however while there's always the actual hypothesis, that however unlikely has not been falsified or confirmed and may never be but that some scientists agree needs investigation. Time will tell if it will always only remain claims (hypothesis fits here), but that's what we have now... If it's "COVID-19 lab leak claims" how do we also present it as a scientific hypothesis? Yet another possible variant would be "story", that some sources use. Adding "allegations" in case it makes sense... —PaleoNeonate – 02:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article already presents the scientific hypothesis and the less than scientific hypothesis. I think "claims" is a word that encapsulates both. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 03:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we first have to decide if it is just one thing. If it is two or three, then we have to separate that. The problem for me is that there were several differing theories.
1 The "leak" was either a cover up for deliberately releasing it or it genuinely escaped by accident
2 What "leaked" was manufactured there, or was brought in from somewhere else as a sample
3 It was "a few years old in the form of RAT coming from a mine", not that it "came from bats via another animal" to the market
4 It either started "when lab workers got ill at home bringing it to the market" as no proof found it was on food at the market, or it "was there from lab workers who were on lunch break" and either one was cleaned up by the government sterilising the market. After all, someone has to come up with how it was "leaked" ...
For me, the issue is that this seems like a catch-all, which is why I suggested going with a title much like the JFK conspiracy theories article.
It does feel like there are several theories all mashed up into one "it came from the lab" page.
I would happily support "Covid-19 lab leak claims", as the pluralism is very necessary IMHO; so "Covid-19 lab leak claims" with redirs from "lab-leak conspiracy theory/theories" or the much less desirable "lab-leak hypotheses" --- as well as redirs from any other possibilities.
I think you'll find that most scientists think it needs further investigation, even Daszak said so on several occasions before and after the letter, and throughout the last year. When they went there, they did look into it. It is just that it has been conflated with probability. The lab leak probability is also considered extremely low by most scientists. It took 12 years to find the source of SARS.
We have to remain neutral, so "claims". All the rest seem biased, in some way validating the claims. There is still no evidence either way on any of those 4 points. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"most scientists think it needs further investigation" in the origin, of course, that includes the most plausible natural one (as you say, it's a difficult thing and takes time). Your points are rather convincing to me that "claims" could work... —PaleoNeonate – 03:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate - If Trump really did make speculative comments suggesting the virus was designed by China as a bio-weapon, that would count as a claim. (All such obvious misinformation should get added to the COVID-19 misinformation article, which already exists.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dervorguilla, I can't tell what side you're on here... Based on those definitions you gave, claims seems the most accurate descriptor for the title. The entire article is about the claim that COVID was leaked from the Wuhan lab. These are allegations rather than an established theory. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 14:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguity of meaning does not make theory more neutral.
    WP:NPOV actually enjoins us to avoid vague language. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Claim, story, idea, or allegation. Not theory, that's for things carefully thought-out by experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree, that is my issue with using "theories" as well. Also because theory implies, in my mind, that there exists already a supposition for exactly how it happened, which there does not. These are changing ideas and will continue to change as new information is presented. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 19:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • article titles policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sources across the spectrum: [46][47][48][49][50][51][52] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Theory" here, cannot mean scientific theory (that is distinct from a scientific hypothesis) but the more general colloquial usage. It may be a midway compromise between claims/story and hypothesis, which makes sense (and maybe you're right that it's also a common name in the media)... —PaleoNeonate – 13:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes PaleoNeonate is right. My main concern is that theory insinuates that the claims are established, when in actuality they are still developing and being investigated and possible to change. I think the sources explain that, although they seem to be alright with labeling shifting allegations as a theory, so maybe it is fine to have that as the title. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 14:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we know readers won't simply assume theory means 'scientific theory', with all that entails, rather than the more informal sense of 'idea used to account for a situation'? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC) edited 22:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern including that many people can't distinguish between those terms. Colloquial "theory" usage is like a guess or an idea, more than a scientific hypothesis or a scientific theory (a fact creationists play on to misrepresent evolution as "just a theory", for instance). I have a sources archive and used a series of grep/wc commands. "Theory" has many more matches relatively to "story", "idea", "hypothesis", etc. A few matches are "conspiracy theory" (the latter could well become part of the title at some point in the future too, depending; afterall so far there's much more evidence pointing at disinformation campaigns than at scientific malpractice or a non-natural origin)... —PaleoNeonate – 04:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a page move & support COVID-19 lab leak theory, per 力 and others. Support "COVID-19 lab leak claims" as a distant second preference. Jr8825 • Talk 09:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I now support retaining "hypothesis" as a second preference to "theory", after reading the points made by editors below. I continue to prefer also support "theory" because 1) it may be the COMMONNAME and is more accessible (easily understood/recognisable) 2) I don't think the concern about it implying more scientific weight than "hypothesis" is too severe, as in common usage this isn't the case and I don't think many readers will make that distinction. Jr8825 • Talk 11:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Updated, I now think both keeping the current title (advantageous in terms of precise terminology) and renaming it "theory" (advantageous in terms of recognisability) are fine, I neither support nor oppose a change, which I guess leaves me slightly in favour of the status quo. Jr8825 • Talk 05:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A comment on the issue of pural vs. singular. I think we should use the singular form because the subject of this article as a whole (the idea that the virus emerged from a lab) is one idea (i.e. all versions of this theory have that much in common). I think it's clearer to maintain the singular form in our title and first sentence. Shout out to ProcrastinatingReader, whose changes to the lead paragraph were incredibly helpful in my view, as even though I restored the singular phrasing of the first sentence, I think changes helped distinguish between the overarching "hypothesis/theory" and the separate versions. Jr8825 • Talk 14:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support theory a page move & support for it being named COVID-19 lab leak theory as 力 and others have said. If not then support "claims" over the current wording.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeLondon (talk • contribs) 12:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nearly any reasonable qualifier in the title. "Hypothesis", "Hypotheses", "Theory", and "Claims" all have their benefits and downsides, but any would probably be 'good enough' for being clear enough to most people that it's a possibility (rather than a certainty or a conspiracy) without agonizing over the edge cases. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to "COVID-19 lab leak theory" (or theories) -
    WP:COMMONNAME is a policy-based argument that convinced me with the examples provided above, and although "theory" could be considered misleading in a scientific sense, is the colloquial usage (and better than hypothesis). —PaleoNeonate – 15:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Shibbolethink: I trust it's obvious to readers of this thread that "AfD" means Articles for deletion. I accordingly expect them to understand that those who were supporting "keep" do not automatically support "keeping the name." I don't believe I need to tell them what they already know. (What some may not have known is that 16 voters did voluntarily suggest other names, even though that wasn't the topic.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant to the renaming of this page. 2600:1012:B049:3FD5:F841:3DBE:5488:A017 (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry to contradict you, but the whole purpose of this discussion is for Wikipedians to express our opinions. This is how we decide things.—S Marshall T/C 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says on this page that this is not a place for discussing the article's subject. Surely you knew that I was referring to your opinions about the lab leak idea and not your opinion about the article's title. Thank you for your warm welcome. 2600:1012:B049:3FD5:F841:3DBE:5488:A017 (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position is that the article's title should reflect the article's content, and the article's content clearly demonstrates that these claims are unsupported by evidence and resoundingly doubted by the experts. They are a useful talking point for US politicians who substitute repetition for evidence. My position is that we should say so, and the article title should take into account our rules and policies about misinformation and pseudoscience ("woo", in my comment above). The specific rule that I want to apply is aptly expressed at
    WP:TINFOILHAT: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." We shouldn't dignify this claptrap with words like "hypothesis" or "theory".—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
(Same person here)...Lab leaks aren't pseudoscience...especially when the alleged "mainstream" view has not been confirmed, while investigations into the "alternative" explanation are being stymied by the country that would be liable if it was proven true. No credible intermediary host has been identified and some experts, early on, entertained the possibility (Dr. Andersen of UCSD). Your labeling relies on extremely shaky denials by the chinese communist party who were extremely opaque about the virus from the beginning. You are advocating for a robust focus on scientific opinion (fine) while focusing exclusively on how politicians have used this idea for political purposes. If you ignore the politicians, there are quite a few experts who are open to the possibility, and if that is so, whatever "tin foil" justification you just gave ironically gives credence to what non-scientists say (some politicians have an extremely horrible grasp of science and technology) and subsequently degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. If you want to avoid incorporating pseudoscience into wikipedia, you should stop bringing up what politicians say. 174.193.195.2 (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC) — 174.193.195.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I join issue with you on almost everything you say there. They are pseudoscience: Claims without evidence that few experts are willing to take seriously. It is not "communist" to say so, and indeed, in reaching this view, I have given no credence at all to the Chinese Communist Party. US politicians, and their echo chambers in the US media, are amplifying this noise to such an extent that it risks drowning out the signal. (I am utterly appalled to observe the disgraceful, craven coverage of the matter given by my countrymen in the BBC.) The preponderance of reputable authorities agree on a zoonotic origin for COVID-19 and, as encyclopaedists, it's our duty to be very clear about this, in article titles as well as their content.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
questionable science because there's no evidence for it, although there's always a possibility, however slim, that the evidence could change in the future. "Unsupported by evidence and resoundingly doubted by the experts" ≠ unanimously rejected by experts. TINFOILHAT doesn't apply until the strongly favoured hypothesis (natural origin) is conclusively proven, or the lab leak theory is conclusively disproven. We can report the characterisation of the theory as pseudoscience by some scientists, but we shouldn't be treating the subject of the article as a whole as pseudoscience at this moment in time. Jr8825 • Talk 13:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:FRINGE/ALT instead: To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
And since most reliable sources don't treat it as pseudoscience at this time, neither can WP... —PaleoNeonate – 20:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Same IP here)...I'm not saying "lab leak" "ideas" are really even scientific, let alone pseudoscientific. Investigation will require complex science, but the idea itself is too mundane to label scientific or pseudoscientific. I'm thinking languge like "proposal" or "explanation" or "proposed explanation" is ideal, but not ideal for the title. So I do think "hypothesis" could be replaced with a better word, but I can't think of it. I will say that it is interesting that actual pseudoscience is treated with what some editors here would characterize as radical dignity...check out
Cold Fusion. Maybe "COVID-19 lab leak" is the best possible title that is hiding in plain sight. Deep breaths...let the cortisol decline...you only live once...you will have the best time of your life with the "COVID-19 lab leak" title. 2600:1010:B061:E35E:D007:98BE:6722:39DF (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
While I appreciate the simplicity, I'm definitely concerned that "COVID-19 lab leak" would be interpreted as an event that definitely happened, rather than a "proposed explanation". I think we're better off with a little less simplicity and brevity (within reason, adding a dozen words to the title would clearly be absurd) if it avoids misconceptions about the content. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"COVID-19 lab leak" is an awful title because it suggests that something there's no evidence for is a fact. Jr8825 • Talk 17:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "hypothesis" unless we are also going to characterize explanations which involve natural origin as "claims" in the same article since both are viable explanations without confirmatory evidence. Many of the influential people who are calling for a lab leak investigation aren't saying it is fact. These people are not making "claims" and it is unfair to characterize those voices and views as such. 2600:1012:B049:3FD5:F841:3DBE:5488:A017 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC) — 2600:1012:B049:3FD5:F841:3DBE:5488:A017 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    That's your opinion (it very well might be the opinion of some politicians or journalists, but see,
    this isn't a popularity context). Qualified scientists writing in papers reviewed by their peers say stuff like "There is a strong evidence that SARS‐CoV‐2 virus originated in bats; however, the intermediate animal host is still unknown." [57] and "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory." [58], as well as "The other issue to be addressed beside the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is how this virus infected human beings at the first place. The marginal conspiracy theory of a voluntary released of an engineered virus forwarded by the press, blogs and politicians (Sutton, 2020; Everington, 2020) is not supported by any data (Calisher et al., 2020; Fowdy, 2020). This hypothesis of voluntary release has an impact on part of the population experiencing fear and distress, especially because there is still no clear explanation for the route of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There is consensus within the scientific community to consider that SARS-CoV-2 has not been engineered and is a naturally occurring virus." [59]. Or even referring just to the "accidental lab leak": "Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it." Now, Frutos seems to use both "theory" and "hypothesis", almost interchangeably, so that doesn't help, and it isn't an issue I really care about. However, your comment about "no evidence" is wrong according to high-quality sources on the topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Good morning, can you please explain what you mean by "no evidence"? I see no reason to write a full response until you address this. 2600:1010:B061:E35E:D007:98BE:6722:39DF (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I need to quote your own posts to you? You wrote: "both are viable explanations without confirmatory evidence"... That is, according to reliable sources, patently false. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are misquoting me because you see no difference in meaning between "without confirmatory evidence" and "no evidence", in the interest of
WP:AGF, I highly recommend watching a few episodes of Law & Order as a fun way to learn. 2600:1012:B027:8D2D:31B7:867F:6700:299C (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
That's besides the point. It seems like you're try to say both natural and unnatural origins are viable explanations because neither have been fully confirmed. That's wrong because both have been studied extensively, and reliable sources clearly indicate that a natural origin is the most likely. Scientific evidences are not a black-and-white all-or-nothing situations, they're a consensus that develops over time.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 00:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I do not recognize "theory" or "hypothesis", but neither. --49.150.98.214 (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol we're not calling it "COVID-19 lab leak" sorry. ––FormalDude talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 23:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • support claims As noted above, that's where we are right now. Lots of claims, but little evidence. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support theory - Largely per common name, and an accurate description of what it is. The others come off as a little POV for my taste, specifically ones like claims or allegations. PackMecEng (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Has the lab-leak "theory" been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method? If not, then it's not a theory in the scientific sense. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose Covid Lab Leak Conjectures. To me, conjecture (statement/conclusion without sufficient proof/evidence/information) sounds less POV and more formal than "claim" (which carries the POV connotation of being potentially false), yet at the same time it avoids labeling these ideas as hypotheses, a hypothesis being a tentative proposed model of events formulated to be verified / proven by testing, i.e. a testable well-formulated conjecture. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and verified to be true.--Zaheen (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zaheen I doubt anyone who sees "claims" as somehow being too NPOV would not see "conjectures" in the same light. That said, I think conjectures is also a very good option for the retitle because it is precise and accurate. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 00:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Joint WHO-China Study specifically describes the rumours of a leak from the laboratory. So "rumor" may be also OK per COMMONNAME (term used by major international organizations). –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support theory, and weak oppose hypothesis. Hypothesis is a more scientific-specific term. Theory, as is one of the better options for keeping it neutral. As 
    WP:NPOVNAME, for theory being a more commonly used name in the news. Al83tito (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support "theory" per 力. feminist (+) 07:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "hypothesis" - I think there is a lot of misunderstanding on what the lab leak hypothesis being investigated by science is. Scientists have already debunked the possibility of genetic engineering, but scientists have also found it pretty plausible that COVID-19 may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institue of Virology, just as it has happened with other viruses dozens of times. [60] [61] [62] As politicized as the lab leak hypothesis is, and with very little evidence supporting it, it is also worth noting that researchers have very little evidence to suggest that COVID-19 has natural origins either. It is completely possible that we may never know where COVID-19 originated, but this is not the place to discuss this. Aasim (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Theories, on the other hand, are drawn from one's own experience. A hypothesis is the subject of scientific inquiry. Aasim (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    big bang theory, etc. are all scientific inquiries.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 23:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Theory from Wiktionary: "A description of an event or system that is considered to be accurate."
    Hypothesis from Wiktionary: "Used loosely, a tentative conjecture explaining an observation, phenomenon or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation and/or experimentation. As a scientific term of art, see the attached quotation. Compare to theory, and quotation given there."
    May also want to look at Lexico's definitions of both: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/theory https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hypothesis. Hypothesis is the starting point, theory is the result. Aasim (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's a fair point but it wasn't the one you were making in your initial comment.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 23:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good time to remind everyone that we base titles off the Wikipedia:Article titles policy. The closer should disregard all comments – including maybe 1/3 of those in this section – that have no basis in that policy. That includes words based on editors' personal feelings on the theory, in both directions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gain of function

@My very best wishes: [63] If one can do gain-of function research (this is actually a legitimate research), and do not leak anything then what does it have to do with the subject of this article, which is about a lab leak? And secondly, what does Rand Paul being Rand Paul have to do with this article? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I tend to agree, this is a separate and important sub-controversy, but it is arguably not about the "lab leak". My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, it is essentially the explanation for why some people think the origin is more likely to have been a laboratory than the natural environment. To wit: if the COVID-19 genome shows signs of this kind of research (as some allege), then it's a strong indicator that the pathway to humans was through laboratory experimentation rather than a natural spillover. Thus making it a slightly more specific version of the general lab leak of a natural virus, which proposes certain 'fingerprints' left on the genome that could be identified and provide evidence.
It's also worth noting that a number of the advocates for the GoFR origin are members of
The Cambridge Working Group
, which opposes this type of research and calls "for all work involving potential pandemic pathogens to be halted". Such a scenario of amplifying the danger ("pathogenesis, transmissibility, or host range") of a collected virus, losing control, and ending up in a pandemic is the thing they've been warning about. Whether they're the ones most familiar with the techniques and able to see the dangers, or falling prey to the pitfalls of motivated reasoning, we won't know until a definitive origin is identified. Either way,
I would argue that it's a very notable (and distinct) theory: both regarding senators who (officially) do not know what they're talking about and the scientific opinions of some researchers. Given that their opinion on the origin is based on what they interpret as evidence of this kind of research, it would be difficult to write a comprehensive article on the topic without directly addressing these claims. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A virus, possibly engineered in a lab or possibly not, and then leaked, intentionally or unintentionally, falls within the scope of this article certainly. But abstract discussions about gain of function research (outside the context of this specific leak theory), or misinformation spread by US senators, is better discussed in other articles IMO. I feel the Rand Paul nonsense is best kept in COVID-19 misinformation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this article should focus on the sources (particularly scientific) drawing a link between perceived genomic evidence of GoFR and the human origin. But that requires a more delicate touch than merely removing the section entirely. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your arguments are convincing. Although not exactly on the subject, this is definitely related and should be included - as a separate section and, yes, together with claim by Rand Paul. Just rewrite this better, which probably requires more space. I think this WaPO fact-checking get it right [64] Meaning there was indeed a gain of function research in 2017: "For instance, in 2017, WIV published a study that said researchers had found a coronavirus from a bat that could be transmitted directly to humans. WIV researchers used reverse genetics to deliberately create novel recombinants of wild bat coronavirus backbones and spike genes, then tested the ability of these chimeric (man-made) viruses to replicate in — not just infect — a variety of cell lines. ... The article, under its list of funders, included: the National Institutes of Health." This is the paper: [65] (yes, this is definitely "a gain of function" research as it say Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously) However, they say those are viruses more closely related to SARS-1. OK. Now, according to disclosure by WIV, "none of the virus samples used to conduct these experiments were or could have been transformed to be the new coronavirus that causes the disease covid-19." Can we trust a disclosure by WIV? I would say yes, sure, because the viruses from this paper could hardly be used for such purpose. Moreover, $600,000 allocated to WIV though EcoAlliance were not designated for any gain of function research, Fauci said. But is not it the same grant as in 2017 [66]? Probably yes, but one can not say anything for sure without looking at the actual budget of the grant and the actual expenses. Let's trust Fauci. All of that probably needs to be explained on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially the same information also currently appears at
unduly weighted there too. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
When I included this, I think I did explicitly say that a rewrite might be required. I haven't gotten around to doing that, though anybody is free to take the initiative and complete that task: the section on deliberate engineering (as one of the various versions of the lab leak) is still WIP, but if you look at it and look at the differences with the section at the misinformation article, you might have an idea how I was planning on doing this: feel free to improve if you think there's a better format. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps this belongs to another page. I posted my comments there, Talk:Gain-of-function_research#Gain-of-function_studies_of_SARS. However, I am not that much familiar with the subject, so you are more than welcome to correct me and disagree. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think briefly mentioning Rand Paul in this article is

WP:DUE, if we can get a source that spells out what I suspect: that Rand Paul is a big lab leak proponent, and that he is going on and on about gain-of-function research and Dr. Fauci as a way to advocate for the lab leak idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

This is still missing (I noticed the hidden text marking its former location). Is anyone intending to work on a rewrite? I think it warrants at least a passing mention and a wikilink, as it came up in some of things I read today, including this editorial in The Scientist (already listed in the Sources section above). I think coverage of notable political claims within the US, and their rebuttal by scientists, are appropriate for this article (I'm not in the US, so I don't know the ins and outs). The science is also beyond my expertise, so it's better if someone else took this on. Jr8825 • Talk 05:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this section is a problem. As copied it's about misinformation, not about this theory. It's focused on Rand Paul's problems, which is just COVID-19 misinformation. It explains nothing about GOF. The sections all being equivalent in length makes it seem like there are three equally competing theories under the "lab leak" name. I feel it needs rewriting from scratch, but that's largely outside my area of expertise. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding this, I think it was an important missing piece of information, but I agree it needs a rewrite and probably deserves less attention than now . The paragraph from the misinformation article is too centred on the US political controversy of whether the US National Institutes of Health funded gain-of-function research, why is mostly irrelevant. The paragraph needs to summarise what the type of research possibly is, whether it's likely or unlikely to have occurred at the WIV at all (US funding aside), and whether that has anything to do with the likelihood of a lab leak. Jr8825 • Talk 15:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added it because there seems to be consensus for it in the #"Versions" section -- what exactly is this theory? section above. I am fine with a rewrite, I just wanted to get something to start us off. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaram P in Current Science

@RandomCanadian: @Shibbolethink: @Bakkster Man: @Dervorguilla: I was working through the sources listed at the top of this page, and found additional coverage of Wade's piece not already discussed in this thread in Balaram, P. (10 June 2021). "The murky origins of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic" (PDF). Current Science. 120 (11): 1663–1666. Please review page 1664 and share your thoughts. One thing to note is Balaram's comment that "Baltimore, the 1975 Nobel laureate, one of the high priests of molecular biology and the co-discoverer of the enzyme reverse transcriptase, central to the RT-PCR diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2, is not a voice to be easily dismissed." Jr8825 • Talk 20:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jr8825, Since this is a journal with an impact factor of 0.756, not edited by virologists or biosafety experts and not even peer reviewed (I believe "Commentary" is Current Science's Op-Ed)....I don't think we should trust it to get extremely controversial claims right. I don't even think this journal is MEDLINE indexed (AKA it won't show up in Pubmed [67], typically a HUGE red flag).
It's an opinion piece published in a non-topic-relevant journal, with an extremely low impact factor. The author actually was the editor of this journal until 2013, and I think oversees the current editor [68]. To me, it seems as though he just never stopped writing editorials for this journal, even after retiring. He has no expertise in virology of any kind. He has not published articles about viruses [69]. He is not recognized as an expert on these topics.
For all of these reasons, I don't think this paper should be considered reliable for this controversial content.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: Thanks for clarifying, much appreciated! Jr8825 • Talk 21:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jr8825, no problem happy to help :) --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: As noted by Shibbolethink, Balaram's commentary is an "opinion piece". Moreover, it mentions those who marshal data, but whose analyses are consigned to what are dismissively termed as ‘low impact’ journals. And we're supposed to be citing established authorities here. For these, try WHO or the European CDC. The Joint WHO-China Study report cites many sources that are both current (2021) and reliable (at least in the view of that definitively mainstream intergovernmental organization). –Dervorguilla (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC) 00:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to agreement with the above comments about he source strength, I think it's worth noting that we never really doubted whether Baltimore (or his views on the topic) was notable or credible or not. The reason we moved away from listing prominent adherents in the first place was to avoid giving the mistaken impression that they were either more or less numerous than we have reliable sources to indicate (an extension of the whole 'what is mainstream/consensus' discussion). In other words, it was never a sourcing issue to begin with, so the quality of this source for this information is a bit moot. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest difference is that Balaram is an Op-Ed by an expert in an adjacent field (but not this one), whereas SBM is a journalistic outlet with an editorial board, publishing news-based pieces. Our view of SBM is based on the consensus summarized at
the review from the journal
should be cited (for non-disputed content), precisely because it is written by an expert in this topic. However, when it contravenes the consensus of experts, it should be presented as a minority view and in due weight to the coverage of the author/views in independent sources. I'd also like to point out that I personally have described the review much more favorably than the paper published by the Sirotkins, who are americans.
Be careful that in accusing others of bias, you do not attribute malfeasance where simple disagreement may exist.
If you think we are not representative of the community as a whole, you are free to bring this question to
WP:RSN
. If you do, my suggestion would be to state the facts as neutrally as possible, not drag content disputes into it, and be succinct. Such posts are typically the most successful at RSN. I am not telling you anything you do not already know, as someone with more than 10x as many edits as I have. But this is precisely why I find your comment so troubling. Why argue that other editors are biased when it would be simpler and easier to just broaden the discussion to the relevant noticeboard?
If you think the wikipedia community or the consensus of its editors as a whole is biased and it would not be a fair discussion, then there is nothing I can do to help you.
WP:YWAB applies. Out of curiosity, do you also think calling "ivmmeta.com" unreliable is a systemic bias? See: [70] [71] [72] [73] --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I think calling ivmmeta.com unreliable is due to its inherent unreliability as a self-published, non-reviewed, and anonymous source whose methodology has been criticized by experts in evidence-based medicine, but its rightful exclusion as a source is not a systemic bias. But I think it's a fair concern in general that editors be vigilant against being more permissive (less skeptical) of sources that support their own views, even if they are majority views. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Animalparty, As long as we aren't using SBM to support claims that run counter to the consensus of the published literature, I don't see the issue.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I share the concerns regarding Science-Based Medicine (unlike some editors), I don't think using this source addresses that problem. I'm not going to discount Balaram P the way I would discount ivmmeta.com, but it's not a source I would rush to use. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS Barh et al (2020) from sources section is low quality?

This paper was published in a mediocre journal (Le Infezioni in Medicina, Q3 in Scimago rankings) from Italy. Its main author, Debmalya Bahr, has a background in biotechnology and bioinformatics. He has good recent publications in computational bioinformatics platforms, which seems to be his expertise. He is not a virologist or epidemiologist. The paper is written in a mediocre english, and its conclusions are not tightly linked to their premises and review of evidence. It has received only 2 citations by the Google Scholar metric.

For the above reasons, I propose we rely as little as possible on this paper as a source for wikipedia. To clinch on it being, technically, a MEDRS and ignore its flaws would go a bit in the

WP:Gaming direction, in my opinion.Forich (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

@Forich: If you look beyond the first author, you will see that the other authors are molecular geneticists and biologists (and bioinformatics isn't exactly entirely unrelated, either, especially if this involves reporting on analysis of genomic sequences [which is covered by bioinformatics]). It's also not the job of Wikipedia editors to be peer-reviewers. If you have issues with this particular journal (which, I note, is published by the University of Salerno and is MEDLINE-indexed), you're free to go to RSN. Mind telling where in the article this is currently cited? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forich, I would say it's borderline which is probably why no one has used it as a source yet as far as I can tell. I agree with RandomCanadian that its authors actually probably do have expertise in this topic, given their training and its relation to the topic at hand. But I also agree with you that the journal is not particularly well known and the paper is not heavily-cited, and we should take that into account. I agree with RC, though, that we should not be using critique of the paper itself (its use of English, its logic/reasoning, etc.) as that is not our job here. Personally I thought it was as good if not better than most news-based RS pieces we have listed.
That's why I call it "borderline" as a scholarly-source. I wouldn't personally use it as a citation for anything controversial, and I would always bundle it with a higher quality source for even non-controversial claims, if possible. Overall, I think it only helps us establish the overall sense of the field by content experts.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a review article, in a MEDLINE-indexed journal, and the journal title translates to "Infections in medicine". It's
WP:MEDRS and also in the correct field. We're trying to disqualify MEDRS sources now? I think that might be a step too far, personally. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The English seemed perfectly fine to me. It's a review article in an academic journal that specialises in infectious diseases, with eight co-authors who have credentials in biology. It's also one of the most comprehensive pieces of literature we have, prior to which we were citing primary sources. None of its conclusions actually seem contentious and I see no exceptional claims made.
It's also one of the few such journals in Italy, all of which are roughly comparable.[74] Given also that all Italian journals are Q3 in rankings, and Q1 journals are predominantly British or American, I'd argue there's a bit of a WP:Systemic bias issue if we start excluding Italian journals. (Not to mention these rankings aren't necessarily a measure of reliability.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have a substantive reason for the removal... There are two main studies that analyse the lab leak theory AFAIK. There's the WHO report, and there's this Nature Medicine report, both of which are primary sources with limited discussion in reviews (the latter more than the former, mostly due to age). The argument RC is making is that the latter deserves no mention in this article? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The argument I was making is that the paper isn't notable enough for us to single it out like that, and that in its current shape, it's inclusion was basically just selected quotes. I would not object if there was a better way to include this, as I've written on your talk page. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone else, see continued discussion here. Any policy-based objections to the argument there? Aside, on the note of the "current shape" of things, now would be a good time to remind ourselves of the
WP:NOTPERFECT policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Not necessarily an endorsement, but this has the advantage of being open-access, in a decent journal, of being a review, it makes no extraordinary claims and interestingly it describes the narratives that conflict with the most plausible scenarios "conspiracy theories" (with quotes). —PaleoNeonate – 21:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of reported bias in 'established scholarship'

Most WP readers understand that this lab-leak hypothesis is far from accepted academic scholarship. So (per GEVAL policy) we need to describe this idea in [its] proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Those may (and generally should) differ.

Ordinary nonexperts are expected to view established scientific scholars as having potential conflicts of interest. Economic and commercial interests may color [their] objectivity.... The integrity of the field requires disclosure.... Reader[s] may then judge and ... make allowance for the impact of the bias. (APA, Full Disclosure of Interests Form.) Arguably, our withholding information about the general public's beliefs could (for better or worse) undermine this well-established system.

But what's the most objective way to describe the beliefs of the wider world? (High-quality mainstream polls?) Should they go in the lead? –Dervorguilla (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC) 03:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's already agreed that we don't base our coverage of controversial subjects on opinion polls (i.e.
unannotated statistics). As for the claims about perceived conflicts of interests, unless there's something tangible in multiple sources to back it up (there's maybe one example in this instance, and it only concerns one researcher, not the whole of the scientific scholars in the relevant field), we shouldn't entertain positions which essentially sum up to WP:FLAT-like "The scientific establishment (peer-reviewed journals, universities) are trying to suppress the Truth™"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with everything RandomCanadian said. I'd also add the following point: you can be correct about unreliable scientists, biased experts and up-their-own-arses academia – but the only thing opinion polls are authoritative on is the extent of popular ignorance. It's got a mention in the body, but definitely doesn't belong in the lead. Jr8825 • Talk 04:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@
belongs in the context of the thread. Jr8825 • Talk 20:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I have restored the original format. Dervorguilla, if you wish to re-focus on a specific concern (seems a bit early for that), you're free to do so (at the bottom of this section), but not by adding headers which obfuscate the original flow of the discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr8825: Many people do question the value of public-opinion polls for determining the public's beliefs – including their "ignorance". But let's move on.

The APA form further requires that authors also carefully consider disclosure where circumstances could suggest bias *against* a ... facility or person. And the article now states that some "

scientists have said that they dismissed ... the lab leak theory ... as a result of perceived polarization resulting from Donald Trump's embrace of the theory.
" We unabashedly describe a (belatedly) acknowledged conflict of interest. Our readers now get to make allowance for the impact of the bias.

This well established system works most effectively if such information is readily available (like in the lead). –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point about bias affecting the science. The bias of "RS" is always present on Wikipedia, precisely because we follow them. We still need to continue following them though, and trust in the eventual self-corrective behaviour of peer-review/scientific consensus, which is already emerging in this case. I think your concern is a philosophical/epistemological one that's really beyond our scope here, and the solution – providing readers with opinion polling – is worse than the problem. Not least because there's a high chance of
WP:RS works on the assumption that we treat experts as authorities within their fields. Again, I think RandomCanadian did a good job of pointing to the most appropriate essays. Jr8825 • Talk 06:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree. Bias is unavoidable, but our job here is to correctly reflect what the most reliable sources are saying, not to promote a false equivalence between journalists and scientists (it is not, either, to have
an epistemological argument about this - concerns about policy, if you wish to engage on that, should be dealt with on the relevant pages). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Conspiracy theory in the lead

Should we include the statement "the idea has been described by some researchers as a conspiracy theory" in the lead?

I believe this is undue weight. The statement has two sources. One is a paper arguing against the spillover model, which, to my non-specialist knowledge, puts it outside current mainstream scientific views on the origins of the virus (compare with mentions of "spillover" in this Nature News article). The other dates from February, before recent developments such as the release of the WHO report and sustained criticism of the February 2020 Lancet statement by other scientists, for example in the BMJ.

I'm unconvinced that there's a strong enough weight of sources to support keeping a statement calling the lab leak theory as a whole a "conspiracy" in the lead. (To clarify, I'm not referring to related conspiracy theories, such as bio-weapon conspiracies, or arguing this information should be removed from the article body.) It seems to contradict the tone of recent output from science magazines, such as this June explainer in Nature News ("Most scientists say SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin, and was transmitted from an animal to humans. However, a lab leak has not been ruled out, and many are calling for a deeper investigation into the hypothesis that the virus emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)") or this July editorial in The Scientist ("there is not yet enough concrete supporting evidence for either the lab-leak hypothesis or the zoonosis model to lead a reasonable person to conclude that one or the other is the true origin of SARS-CoV-2. There’s no clincher for the zoonotic hypothesis, either in the form of a clear intermediate animal host or a definitive genetic link between bat coronaviruses and the pathogen that gave rise to a global outbreak. Similarly, the lab-leak hypothesis lacks evidence that decisively traces the origin of SARS-CoV-2 back to the WIV or any other laboratory.") And, of course, you've got the head of the WHO saying back in March that "although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation ... all hypotheses remain on the table".

I'm aware of the no-con outcome of the February RfC on a very similar issue, although the scope of my question is narrower. Jr8825 • Talk 04:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue here is: do these minority viewpoints warrant inclusion, or are they too fringe? The minority viewpoints being 1) Researchers who label the lab leak claim a conspiracy theory, and 2) Scientists who do not agree that a natural origin is the most likely.
Because the entire sentence at question is: The idea has been described by some researchers as a conspiracy theory, with most scientists agreeing that a natural origin is the most likely.
We're already representing an even smaller minority viewpoint by specifying that not all scientists agree on the natural origin being most likely, only most. Therefore we should also represent the opposing minority viewpoint that some researchers call it a conspiracy theory. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 06:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that "most scientists [agree] that a natural origin is the most likely" is heavily cited and based on excellent sources which say "most". I don't agree that it's somehow representing the minority who hold a different view, it's simply a sourced sentence on the current consensus – saying "all" scientists would be unsupported. And regardless, neither minority view should be treated with
equal validity. My argument is we should only retain the second part of the sentence, because that's the only part which has a strong enough weight of sourcing to deserve to be in the lead. Jr8825 • Talk 06:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:SIGCOV
of scientists/researchers calling it a conspiracy theory.
Probably the most notable being "Writing for The Lancet, the same group of researchers who in February 2020 described the lab leak idea as a baseless conspiracy theory said that they haven’t changed their minds." The Daily Beast referencing [1] The Lancet in a July 2021 article.
It definitely warrants inclusion per
WP:BALANCE. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 08:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@
imperfect test, particularly in this case as the word "conspiracy" has been levelled pretty extensively at the misinformation surrounding COVID, and I suspect not all of these labels were being applied by scientists (or they were being directed as particular claims made by politicians or social media posts without evidence). Jr8825 • Talk 11:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Per bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656:
  • Science magazine reports: “Scientists ‘strongly condemn’ rumors and conspiracy theories about origin of coronavirus outbreak,” quoting Daszak as saying, “We’re in the midst of the social media misinformation age, and these rumors and conspiracy theories have real consequences, including threats of violence that have occurred to our colleagues in China.”
  • New York Times depicts the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a victim of “conspiracy theories”
  • The science magazine Undark reports that the lab leak is a conspiracy theory “that’s been broadly discredited”
Per coronavirusblog.uk/The%20Lab-Leak%20Hypothesis.pdf
  • Vincent Racaniello, a professor at Columbia and a co-host of a podcast called This Week in Virology, said on February 9 that the idea of an accident in Wuhan was “complete bunk.”
  • Racaniello’s dismissal was seconded by a group of scientists from Ohio State, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of North Carolina, who put out a paper in Emerging Microbes and Infections to quiet the “speculations, rumors, and conspiracy theories that SARS-CoV-2 is of laboratory origin.”
  • One of the paper’s authors, Susan Weiss, told the Raleigh News & Observer, “The conspiracy theory is ridiculous.”
Per doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(21)00938-6
  • Unless you have evidence that they were working on viruses very closely related to the one that 'escaped', then that's where it becomes conspiracy theory.
Per dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3763542
  • I hasten not to add, because of any conspiracy theory that the virus was deliberately introduced into Wuhan.
Per journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/mSphere.00669-20#B19
  • Some may verge on the unbelievable, such as the conspiracy theory that gain-of-function research conducted on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronaviruses in 2015 is connected to the emergence of COVID-19 that made it to British tabloids
––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 11:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment on this source. I guess your criticism is about the content in 4.3, but how is this incompatible with spillover? They're discussing means of control, not disputing the means of transfer, right? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks for sharing these. I skim read all of them and I think there are issues with the way you're presenting them here.
  • BMJ: you're
    cherry-picking
    this article, as it's written on the premise that it "was considered a debunked conspiracy theory, but some experts are revisiting it amid calls for a new, more thorough investigation" (past tense) and objecting to the label. Both the NYT & Undark (May & June 2020) are presented on a timeline to juxtapose them with a softening of tone in 2021.
  • Nicholson Baker: not a subject-matter expert, but published in The NY Magazine. Again from Jan 2021 (before the shift in scientific views, according to sources such as the BMJ article). Baker quotes the peer-reviewed paper from Ohio, Penn & NC universities as using the phrasing "currently no credible evidence" (not the same thing as calling it a conspiracy theory). Only two individual scientists applied the "conspiracy theory" label in an unqualified manner: Weiss, one of the authors, in a separate newspaper interview, and Racaniello ("bunk"), who doesn't seem to have been involved in the paper.
  • New Scientist: I don't have access through this paywall.
  • Ciuriak SSRN paper: misquoted/misinterpreted, as the "conspiracy theory" he's referring to is the idea that the virus was deliberately introduced at the 2019 Military World Games (section 2.3, p.6), if you read the surrounding sentences it's clear he's not discussing the lab leak theory generally.
  • ASM paper: again referring to a related conspiracy theory, the idea that "gain-of-function research ... is connected to the emergence of COVID-19". It does not explicitly call this article's subject generally a conspiracy theory. Jr8825 • Talk 12:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jr8825, arguments about it being called a conspiracy theory in the past don't really make sense here, because we are also putting this claim in the past tense. We also already have a sentence about how some commentators have walked back their criticism. Should we just contextualize this better? Because it is absolutely accurate to say that some scientists have described some versions of the lab leak conspiracy theories. We don't need to say that they're calling the whole thing a conspiracy theory, although I believe we have pretty good sourcing on that, personally. I am willing to compromise on that.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's probably undue in the lede. I think it would be more reasonable to mention that it used to be widely referred to as a conspiracy theory, or refer specifically to the discredited elements relating to a lab leak that remain accurately described as a conspiracy theory (Bannon-funded bioweapon preprints, etc). The more relevant item for the lede seems to be noting it as a minority scientific view relative to mainstream, leaving the conspiracy theory label history for a longer section below. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakkster Man: your comment reminded me that the following sentence used to be in the lead: "It was subsequently widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory". I think this is better as it places it before the WHO report/mid-2021, but doesn't have a definite end date. I went ahead and made a bold edit to restore this text while removing the statement I had issue with in the final paragraph, combining the cites for both. I think it's a good compromise, do other editors agree? Jr8825 • Talk 15:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jr8825, Yes, I think this is a fine compromise.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Due in some form and indeed important to make sure that we don't describe all claims as such, or the few scientists supporting it as conspiracy theorists in Wikipedia's voice, —PaleoNeonate – 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support that text as a compromise. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 19:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiratorial

@Aeonx: this has been reworked since by another editor, but the context of the cited source ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/technology/how-anti-asian-activity-online-set-the-stage-for-real-world-violence.html ) was anti-Asian sentiment by conspiracy theorists on social media. —PaleoNeonate – 18:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and my edit was acknowledging the fact that anti-asian sentiment and conspiracy are not the same thing and that there was no reliable source with evidence of conspiracy[75] in regards to that point. Aeonx (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better coverage of the science

I wrote some comments here about coverage of science in this article. It seems a bit lacking, to me. We give a lot of space to the allegations (c.f. "Claims and rebuttals" section), but no weight to the main scientific sources that cover this theory and their discussion on why they think it's a "remote possibility". As I said there, It's certainly more informative to the reader than just repeating how some ideas are "baseless"; I can't speak for every reader but personally when I'm learning about something I like to know how the conclusions were reached, rather than just taking them for granted.

There are a few review studies, which should be safe to use. The most comprehensive source seems to be the WHO report, which is unfortunately a very long primary source with no review articles, but

WP:MEDREV seems to permit discussion with intext attribution. It's a bit outside my area of expertise, but we have at least one virologist and several other editors with relevant experience. Is this something we can work on? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

ProcrastinatingReader, Yes I agree. I think we could add more info on the known viruses circulating in bats, the molecular clock analyses, the diversity of genomes present in the samples collected at the Huanan market indicating widespread circulation in Wuhan, etc. which are part of why virologists are so skeptical of these theories.
I know we hate citing User essays, but I actually think some of the coverage on this over at
WP:NOLABLEAK is pretty good, and could be translated here (with more robust sourcing and attribution) for this purpose. I also think we cover it okayish at the SARS-CoV-2
article.
Inclusion of such content here, with appropriate sourcing, would make this article a lot more robust and less like we're beating a dead horse without providing any actual evidence from RSes to substantiate the claims. Off the top of my head, the best people to quote would be Danielle Anderson (from the Bloomberg piece), Angela Rasmussen (from her op ed), Polly Hayes (from The Conversation), and Peter Knight (also from The Conversation). All those sources are in the list at the top, sorry I'm too lazy to link them here again. That may not be what you had in mind, but it was what I read in your comment anyway. I think the stuff from those articles I linked above could be provided with INTEXT attribution and go a long way.
FWIW, there is also a forthcoming
WP:RSP. I'll let you know when it gets published and put a little section here on this talk page disclosing the COI and that I think it might be useful, but that I intentionally won't add anything from it, to avoid accusations of COI.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Those would be fine too. I was under the assumption that the general media isn't covering the scientific details too thoroughly (at least not the parts that don't make for attractive headlines) since the average reader probably doesn't care about the underlying virology. Generally I had in mind the use of journal articles or appropriate comments from scientists actually discussing, well, the science, rather than just pure speculation or "calling for investigations". Journal wise, if I understand correctly, I think this review covers all known sources at the time, and since then (AFAIK) the only relevant analysis was the WHO report (relevant pages: 118-120).
Looking forward to that article! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader, I think the Op-Eds I mentioned are really beneficial for exactly the reasons you describe. These are subject matter experts, publishing in an editorially reviewed venue, discussing these issues and talking about the underlying science. For example, I think those The Conversation pieces are really useful for this. Since there's no peer review, they are only reliable for attributed quotes. I think making sure they are DUE will be important, but the scientists I mentioned have been quoted as experts in other venues, so that helps.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want non-attributed sources for this, then absolutely I think journal articles are the way to go. The Hakim piece and the Frutos et al piece (in March 2021) both provide counter-arguments, so maybe we should lay those out better. I would consider both of these more reliable than the Barh et al piece.
As you've said re: the WHO primary source, I don't think we have to restrict ourselves to journal articles, because we can use attribution to couch these things in the voices of the scientists who have said them.It would be entirely appropriate to quote the expert-voice op-eds then.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggested journal + author op-ed approach. I wanted to add my voice to that building consensus and also to suggest that it might lead to minor problems down the line—other editors may try to add opinion sources in the future, and we should be clear we're using these for authoritative layperson explanations of attached MEDRS sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE. And there is clearly a difference between including attributed opinions of notable experts (credentialed scientists) and including opinions from journalists and other lay people with no formal training in this topic. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Sounds like Shibbolethink has given us a great blueprint above, by mentioning concepts to cover and sources to use. Maybe one of us can get it started, and then Shibbolethink and others can proofread it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the undue weight tag on that section now resolved? What are the remaining issues? Jr8825 • Talk 00:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Ping Shibbolethink) Jr8825 • Talk 00:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jr8825, thanks for the ping :) Personally I think there's undue weight on the BSL2 vs 4 section. But I haven't done the leg work of finding the best sources on that part of it. It may be a large part of that FAIR article I mentioned, as it happens. But I believe there are other WP:RSes that address it. Just don't have time to find em right at this moment. I definitely think the Pre-adaptation section is now no longer undue!--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I'm going to move that tag down to the safe procedures section then, so it's clearer which section we need to work on next. Thanks for your work. Jr8825 • Talk 01:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One good bit of that was removing the SYNTH on the BSL-stuff. I don't think the French language version of the Sallard article makes that point; while the other two sources used to report it where clearly not being appropriately used. Now there's still the "safety procedures at the WIV", which is still pretty one-sided (there's surely a boatload of discussions about this at the WIV talk page, see Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#Add_in_foreign_scientist's_testimony as the most recent example). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we're definitely missing the perspective of plenty of virologists on this. Lipkin, interestingly enough, has also conducted work with a BSL3-adjacent virus (Kunjin adjacent to WNV) that is itself handled at BSL2 because it lacks the neurovirulence of its pathogenic cousin. But that fact isn't easily found in a relevant secondary RS to my knowledge, so I'm not saying we should include it. Just noting it as an example of why other virologists likely do not agree. Using BSL3-related viruses that are themselves less human irulent at BSL2 is a pretty widely established practice and has been for decades. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VOA News and claims of improper PPE

Are there better sources for this claim? Because

VOA has had controversies in recent times about independence from political influence, especially during the trump administration... See: [76] [77] [78]. That last one is a controversy over an overtly puff piece interview with one of the chief promoters of the lab leak theory (Guo Wengui), in their news section. About this interview, Mark Feldstein, Chair of the department of Broadcast Journalism at UMaryland, said it "was a colossal and unprecedented violation of journalistic professionalism and broadcast industry standards" and that "There had been a grossly negligent approach" to pre-interview vetting and failure to "corroborate the authenticity of Guo's evidence or interview other sources." [79][80][81]

Is this really the sourcing we want for a controversial claim like this? I think it was added in good faith, because the editor probably, like me, didn't know all this back story about VOA. I used to think they were the exception to the "propaganda agencies never die, they just become accepted" rule of thumb.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written the paragraph and merged the sentences together. The VOA citation is now not-strictly-necessary, so can be removed if you feel strongly enough about it. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO Report

Real quick, two thoughts about the WHO report:

  • I am not convinced that the WHO report should be avoided as a source or downweighted because it is primary. The nutshell at
    WP:MEDORG
    mentions that statements from international expert bodies need be discarded or downweighted because they are primary.
Here's a relevant quote from
WP:MEDORG
: Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include [...] the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.
  • I would be in favor of downweighting the Director General's statements he made about the WHO report, because his statements were not included in the final, peer-reviewed report. They are a single person's statements, as opposed to statements that went through a careful drafting, peer review, and consensus process.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: regarding "downweighting", I don't see the need to minimise his statements because as head of the WHO they're at the very least politically significant (his ordering of a further investigation into a possible lab origin is just as notable as Biden's instruction to US intelligence agencies). However, even if others disagree with me here and decide his comments should be minimised because they're not authoritative, I think we should distinguish between what he said was his own personal opinion ("I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough" and the issues about data sharing, which he was simply relaying from the scientists involved in the report ("In my discussions with the team, they expressed the difficulties they encountered in accessing raw data", which also echoes comments by other scientists involved in the study, according to the Reuters report. Jr8825 • Talk 00:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion about name of WHO report

The short title for that joint report (not "WHO report") is the 2021 Joint WHO-China Study Team report (or Joint WHO-China Study]). –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC) 09:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dervorguilla, we actually had an RfC about this back in June, you can see the results and the link to the RfC on the Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus). The outcome was to use "WHO report" so Novem Linguae is absolutely right about this usage.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 09:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: I see that you did start an RfC back in June, which you withdrew after 4 days (and 9 comments). You said something about a WP:SNOWBALL in favor of option B. –Dervorguilla (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOWBALL is intended for.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Shibbolethink: Closing discourages people from continuing to post comments... (WP:CLOSE) No one "agreed" (or disagreed) on this closure. –Dervorguilla (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dervorguilla, I never closed the discussion. It got archived. In fact, when withdrawing, I said: "I'm withdrawing and leaving this open so as not to ruffle any feathers unnecessarily."
I would also direct your attention to
WP:RFC, where it says: "There are several ways in which RfCs end: 1) The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the [template]." It also says: "Anyone who wants to have more comments on the topic can restart an RfC that has ended...For example, the original poster of an RfC might withdraw it, but someone else may have become interested in the topic in the meantime and restart it." This is exactly the scenario in this RfC, except nobody cared enough to restart it.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Shibbolethink: I correctly said that you withdrew the RfC after 4 days. I then erroneously said that you closed the discussion. You left it open, not closed. My error. –Dervorguilla (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bold lead additions

Adding a descriptor to the first sentence of the lede

  • "It was subsequently widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory"
  • "Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin, describing it as a remote possibility"
'Widely' simply means a majority, which I think is fair to say given how the article describes the theory in general. What do you have an issue with here, specifically?
  • I told you in the edit summary. The term is a
    MOS:LABEL not widely disseminated, it fails verification, and reads unnecessarily POV and thus is unhelpful. It’s also just unclear/wrong out of context, and the later sentences provide context. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It is both, and there is a distinction between *was* widely dismissed and *is* widely dismissed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you pointing that out? Notice my second bullet Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin? How is it contentious? If we can't have this in the first sentence, why do we already have corroborations of it throughout the article?
And can I take your lack of comment on "widely dismissed" to mean it's okay to go forward with that?  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 08:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: 'Widely discounted' and 'widely dismissed' and 'largely skeptical' all have essentially the same meaning. We could even say 'mostly dubious', as long as the point is made that the majority of reliable sources still consider the theory unlikely.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 08:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I’m saying both those terms are not verifiable and you’re not quite parsing the text right. Saying that a theory *was* widely dismissed (in 2020) does not mean it *is* widely dismissed. Similarly, saying that scientists have remained “widely sceptical” is not equivalent to “widely dismissed”. And to be honest, if we get into this label adding business in the first sentence where do we stop. In addition, the term is blatantly false. Definition - it clearly has/is being given due consideration. The first sentence is perfect the way it is, and we should be happy we figured it out so early on. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: "Where do we stop?" Come on, don't use a slippery slope fallacy.
How scientists regard this theory is arguably the most important part of this article, and it should be included in the first sentence.
You are making trivial objections at this point. I think a consensus will find "widely dubious" or something similar to be a good thing to include. "Dubious" means "hesitating or doubting" and "not to be relied upon; suspect" and is a synonym of "skeptical".  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 08:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on adding a descriptor here, @Shibbolethink? One that represents some of the sources you added based on the discussion below?  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 11:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with it. To start with, "discounted" = "no longer considered" which is not the case, it's still a possibility even if it's a very small one. This is a classic case of telling the readers what to think in Wikipedia's voice, rather than laying out the evidence (of a complex issue) before them first. This is a problem – people hate being talked down to, so if a reader comes along having read about this topic, and see Wikipedia calling it "widely dismissed" in the very first instance, it's reasonably likely they'll think Wikipedia itself is just biased and/or dismissive, including of notable sources which have discussed the theory, and quite possibly they'll disengage or be sceptical about the rest of the information we're presenting them with. There's an easy alternative – lay out the facts about what the hypothesis is, and explain why, how and the extent it's considered unlikely. We're writing for the reader after all (
WP:RF/WFTR). Aside from that point, that statement is not currently supported by sources, the lab leak theory is having something of a resurgence at the moment in politics, WHO action and commentary by science writers in the big journals. Jr8825 • Talk 12:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree entirely with Jr’s reasoning, and so there is no confusion if I don’t respond to the latest in this flood of alternate proposal, you can automatically also count me as opposed to whatever latest proposal you add here, unless I explicitly say otherwise, for the same arguments as made above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: "Skepticized proposal" is quite different from "widely discounted", and I proposed it as a comprise to the issues brought up here, namely, that readers don't like being talked down to. "Skepticized proposal" is a helpful descriptor for the first sentence because the lede section, and the rest of the article as a whole, both go on to describe the skepticism of the theory. The notion that "Skepticized proposal" is not currently supported by sources is patently false (and not what Jr was referring to). I've rattled off five sources, all already found in the article, most of them found already spells out in the footnotes, and I could've kept going but I figured five considerations was sufficient. If this is all you have to say on the matter, I can just bring it up at another venue.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 00:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "The COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a skepticized proposal..." would be good, as it's already said and supported elsewhere in the article: "Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin, describing it as a remote possibility and citing a lack of supporting evidence."  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 18:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the descriptor “skepticized” to the first sentence of lede because it is vital info for the article, and a majority of references in this article conclude that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be traced to bats, and that a lab-leak is extremely unlikely, dubious, and doubtful.
  1. “The possibility of a laboratory release or Lab Leak was also considered, but it was determined that a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 is much more likely.” [82]
  2. "Many still caution that entertaining the idea of a lab leak requires clear scientific proof, which hasn't materialized.” [83]
  3. “The investigation concluded that an animal origin was much more likely than a lab leak.” [84]
  4. “the findings suggest that the laboratory incident hypothesis is extremely unlikely to explain introduction of the virus into the human population” [85]
  5. “Most say that the virus is very likely natural and that theories around the Wuhan Institute of Virology are a possible explanation, but they’re unlikely.” [86]
  6. "The lab leak theory doesn't hold up. The rush to find a conspiracy around the COVID-19 pandemic's origins is driven by narrative, not evidence."
[87] Date: June 15, 2021
 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 23:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RS/N next if you're going to continue reverting my edit on grounds of verifiability when it is clearly supported by a majority of reliable sources. What exactly is not verifiable about the statement? You can't say nobody called it skeptical, because a majority of scientists did. If you're so sure it's wrong to include this, you shouldn't have a hard time explaining it.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 00:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
You have been sufficiently responded to. The verifiability issues were pointed out in your previous sets of proposals, which you kept altering. I haven’t checked the latest one (it’s frankly not respectful of others’ time to check your *fourth* proposal in barely 12 hours), but it’s irrelevant as the crux of the issue is that your strong desire to add labels is simply poor writing and unhelpful in the ways myself and Jr have already outlined. I’m not going to engage in endless ping pong here, sorry. You are free to follow the steps outlined in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy. You are not free to impose your preferences above consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't impose my preference above consensus, it was a
WP:AGF.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 00:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

"Lab leak"/"natural origin" not mutually exclusive?

  • I think the following part of the lead is misleading: Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin ... Most scientists agree that a natural origin is far more likely. This implies that "lab leak" and "natural origin" are two mutually exclusive possibilities. In fact, this is exactly the opposite. All leaks of pathogens from labs, even such as Sverdlovsk anthrax leak (a leak in the process of creating a biological weapon) were leaks of pathogens of natural origin. I realize that such misinformation came from the cited sources, but I think it should not appear in the lead of our page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think part of the issue is that there has been, to a large degree, a conflation between the possibility, however remote, of a pathogen of natural origin accidentally leaking from a lab wherein it was being studied, and the far more outlandish conspiracy theory that the virus was artificially engineered as a bioweapon and leaked, or even intentionally released, from a lab. The tentative acknowledgement of the former by some scientists has been seized upon by conspiracy theorists as confirmation of the latter. The problem is that both groups generally use the same term ("lab leak") when referring to these substantively different theories. This can lead to seeming contradictions, where someone promoting the latter form of "lab leak" is contradicted by someone pointing to the likely "natural origin", while also acknowledging that a virus of "natural origin" might have, but probably didn't, "leak" from a lab. They aren't mutually exclusive when the terms are accurately used, but because the term "lab leak" is being inappropriately co-opted by some conspiracists, in common parlance they often are reported as such. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're talking about the first sentence of the lede here. This isn't really applicable, you may want to start a new section for a discussion on that part of the lede.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 01:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The major issue here is that those who propose that a lab leak may have happened describe it as a possible origin of the pandemic. While lab leaks incidents are not impossible, that one would be the origin of a pandemic is considered even less likely. This article wouldn't exist if proponents didn't describe it as the source of the pandemic. If there had been evidence of a recent leak, we would also instead have an article on a specific incident and this would likely have been known by US and French collaborators. Moreover, there is a tendency to politicize the "politicization", claiming that it's the context, rather than the unlikelyhood and lack of evidence, that causes it to be considered unlikely (still today after the disinformation from the Trump administration, not helping is the scientific understanding that spillovers from nature are regular)... —PaleoNeonate – 06:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also see the potential problem here, so I've broken this into a separate subsection for discussion. The problem is the wording "far more likely" because it's being contrasted with the possibility of a lab leak (the previous wording, "most likely origin" contained the same issue). Is this a case of us inaccurately paraphrasing the scientists (are they actually saying, "natural zoonosis/spillover in the community is far more likely [than a lab leak]", and we're summarising them incorrectly)? Or are they actually talking about the virus' genetic origin, and so not discussing it in the context of origin pathways? I don't have the time to open up all the sources right now, so pinging Shibbolethink again, since they worked on the 'consensus cite' for this. Jr8825 • Talk 14:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was discussed already in section above Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#"Accidental_lab_leak_of_a_natural_virus"_vs_"accidental_leak_of_a_modified_virus"_vs_"intentional_bioweapon". User Shibbolethink get it right, and it was described correctly on the page in section COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Accidental_release_of_a_natural_virus. We just need to describe this accordingly in the lead. Yes, the proponents of the theory claimed a number of different things (as was correctly pointed out by Shibbolethink), but the most common version debated by credible experts was merely an accidental leak from the lab of the natural pathogen which would start the pandemic. My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Gain-of-function virus"/"Deliberate genetic engineering" not mutually exclusive?

  • Similar to the section above, I'm unsure whether our section headers are inaccurately treating the two things as mutually exclusive. Isn't it the case that gain-of-function research is, effectively, "deliberate" genetic engineering, as it produces a genetically modified organism/virus? If this is the case, should we try to find a title for the section "deliberate genetic engineering" that more clearly distinguishes it from the section "accidental release of gain-of-function virus"? Perhaps "Other claims of genetic engineering"? Or even "Intentional bioweapon conspiracies" etc. (is that what those conspiracy theories claim)? Jr8825 • Talk 14:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a {{see also}} link to COVID-19 misinformation#Bio-weapon, which maybe resolves this and makes it clear enough? Jr8825 • Talk 14:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect we probably need a bit more clarity in the title as well. It can go both ways. On one hand, the latter "deliberate" example I think was well described by the WHO: "deliberate engineering for release: aka bio-weapon. On the other hand, there's a reason GoFR is considered dual-use: the only practical difference between GoFR to prevent pandemics and genetic engineering to create a weapon is end-use.
      • Perhaps clarifying both categories with that ascribed motive would make sense, but perhaps it makes more sense to combine them under GoFR with further sub-headings for the proposed motives. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would say that gain of function research is a subset of deliberate genetic engineering (including serial passaging, genetic modification (CRISPR, no see'm, etc). You can modify an organism's genome and cause a loss of function, or cause no change in function, and that would not be GoF. However, all GoF is inherently deliberate alteration of the genome, and therefore is part of "deliberate genetic engineering." You don't accidentally perform GoF, you were doing something that had the possibility of causing GoF, and are therefore liable for the consequences. This is how the CDC and NIH view it anyway. I think we've talked about this particular angle on a few different talk pages ([88] [89] [90]). Re: Bakkster Man, I think we're in agreement that "deliberate engineering for release" is just another way to say "intentional release of an engineered virus." There is also, of course, "accidental release of an engineered virus." But it's important to note why we conflate these last two in some places: it's because the evidence we have shows both are extremely unlikely (to the point of being conspiracy theories in wiki-voice). And this evidence is all about the genome itself. It doesn't matter whether or not anybody was trying to release it, if the genome is plainly, obviously, to most virologists, a natural genome. Part of me thinks this would be a good entry on the Origins consensus template, if we keep rehashing the same points... But there is some novelty here. What do you guys think?--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do think we need to be careful of how we describe the intentionality. Intentional modification of the genome is what's alleged, what the genomic evidence relates to, and should be what we describe. Even among the wildest bioweapon theories I haven't seen anyone suggesting the 'evil geniuses' developing a biological weapon at the WIV schemed to release it in their own back yard... But I agree, we've workshopped these kinds of descriptions before, we should do it again. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with BM here. We should not conflate intentional release of an engineered virus with accidental release of an engineered virus. Regardless of how likely or unlikely they are, our sources treat them differently. Some of our sources even treat different types of engineering differently. ImmaculateMeddler (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's quite what Bakkster Man was saying. And I'm quite happy to group conspiracy theories about a deliberate bioweapon release with far-fetched theories about an accidental bioweapon release. My question is: how do we distinguish between "gain-of-function" research of a natural genome and the conspiracies about a 'designed' virus? In both narratives, they virus is created through deliberate genetic engineering – what words do we use to distinguish our separate discussions of the two? Jr8825 • Talk 20:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's two distinct elements going on:
  • What, if any, intentional genetic engineering happened, and why was it performed (ie. understand and prevent future pandemics vs develop a weapon)
  • How was the virus introduced to human circulation, and was it intentional
So two elements of the origins, each further split into the element which can be tested scientifically (genomic studies or epidemiology) and those which are speculation about intention. I think the goal should be to split out and discuss these elements in these contexts, without conflating where it's inappropriate, but combining for brevity where it is. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Is this an adequate solution? Also, I'm still keen to hear Shibbolethink's take on the question raised about the precise nature of the scientific consensus in the above section. Jr8825 • Talk 21:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
dual use technology. The keyword here is intent. ImmaculateMeddler (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
You're correct – I was just being lazy/brief with my characterisations while making a separate point in the discussion. Jr8825 • Talk 21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serious verifiability issues

I've checked a handful of the lead sentences, and almost all either failed verifiability, were improper synthesis of sources, or otherwise violated core content policies. Some, perhaps most, are probably fixable either by finding other sources or by rewording the statements we make. But please can we be careful to accurately represent the sources? Also, can I get some help checking verifiability for the rest of the article? I'm a bit worried if this trend continues throughout. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shibb. I think your sources do improve the verifiability of the statement.
I'd now suggest splitting the statement up into two. The statement made is Most scientists agree that a natural origin is far more likely. This is supported by news sources #1, #2, #3 and #4. The quotes from academic sources (#1, #2, #3, #4) support the idea that the lab leak theory has no evidence. Those two ideas are separate. I don't think the academic sources, at least the given |quote=s, support the statement made and probably don't even need to, but they could support a new statement (on the scientific evidence for lab leak, or lack thereof). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS/AC asks them to do.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree they don't need to say that but I do think "natural origin is more likely" is not equivalent to "lab leak is unlikely". The quotations only show it saying the latter, are you sure they all also say the former? (you don't need to find or add quotes, I'll take your word for it.) My concern in that case is keeping cites in the bundle that do not verify the exact statement made, which would be either redundant or make verifiability harder. If you're sure that's not the case, then that's not a problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)ProcrastinatingReader, If "lab leak is unlikely" but "zoonotic origin is supported by evidence," then "natural origin is more likely" is a valid way to interpret these academic sources. In my opinion, it's summary. That's the way scientific statements work, they are formed on the shared opinion that things with evidence are more likely than things without evidence. I wouldn't say that for news sources, because they are different. But like I said, academic reviews rarely state "Z is more likely than Y." I am not 100% sure they all directly say that evidence exists for a zoonotic origin, but I know that many of them do say that. Others may just describe the evidence without saying it exists, for example, the fact that coronaviruses are typically found in bats.-Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That rationale seems sound, I think, certainly as long as they all discuss the evidence for natural origin. The original FV on that particular statement is probably actually my own fault, since I previously argued that the news sources weren't necessary or were problematic to introduce and sticking to journals was better, not quite realising (at the time) the difficulty it adds to verifiability. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second portion of preceding sentence (Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin, describing it as a remote possibility and citing a lack of supporting evidence) also seems to have a verifiability/
WP:RS/AC issue?. It's currently cited to this, which is about the WHO's opinion, and the second source (The Guardian) doesn't say that thing (of scientific consensus it says Meanwhile, outside of US intelligence circles, the broad consensus among scientific experts remains that the most likely explanation is that Covid-19 jumped to humans from an animal host in a natural event.; its only discussion of the evidence is not attributed to scientists), which verifies the sentence discussed above but not the one it's actually being used to verify. I think it fails verifiability as-is, but it appears some out of your bundle of citations would verify it instead. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
ProcrastinatingReader, I think this is a style issue, where people don't like to have every single sentence cited repeatedly. My perception was that the consensus citation verifies both. but we could duplicate it.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited to different sources though. If there were no citations then yes, default assumption is that the next cite to appear will verify the statement. Removing the two cites and letting it run on is a valid solution, I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some edits to address the synth tag on the statement that "Some scientists ... concerned about the risks of politicization and polarization...", I moved an additional Nature source which mentions politicisation to more clearly support it, but removed it again as I realised it was cited at the end of the sentence. Both sources at the end of the sentence also support that clause. I added an article from MIT Tech Review which interviews scientists and discusses politicisation/polarisation. I also removed the wikilink to group polarization, which I agree was synth on my part when I originally rewrote it – I was trying to aid readers with wikilinks to concepts, but I agree the term isn't explicitly/exclusively being used in terms of psychology. I think that addresses the tag, but I'm open to rewording if you feel it's still not properly supported. Jr8825 • Talk 13:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To support the statement the source needs to say that some scientists agree more investigation is required (even though they are concerned about "politicization and polarization"). IMO it's not enough to say that some scientists are calling for more investigations, and in another article (or, apparently now, the same one) say some (other?) scientists experienced a chilling effect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some other comments:
    • this edit removed a source and the FV, but the statement still fails verification. The source says: The theory that the novel coronavirus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology has gained ground in recent months,1 not least because of suspicions generated by the extreme reticence of China’s government. This does not say:
      1. What the theory is founded on; it says reasons for it gaining ground
      2. All the reasons it is gaining ground, it mentions one
      3. Does not say anything about proximity.
      The statement still fails verification.
    • In regards to MOS:LEADCITE, every sentence other than that is cited in the lead. If you have a single sentence uncited it seems like it's being sourced to the next cite available. Really there should be either no lead cites and all in body, lead cites only for controversial material, or lead cites for all material. Since we've decided the 3rd, it's not helpful to exempt a sentence or two from it, it just makes it harder to see what is sourced and what isn't. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first sentence, I looked for scientific sources. I found Rasmussen's Jan article in Nature, which says "growing speculation that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a laboratory, based on the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic began in the same city as the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a state-of-the-art virology lab that conducts research on bat coronaviruses". I think that's clear and adequate enough, so I changed the wording slightly to match the source ("founded upon" → "developed from") and added it. There's also reputable journalistic sources such as the editorial board of the Financial Times ("A leak from a lab is only a hypothesis, based entirely on circumstantial evidence, but a plausible one. Wuhan’s Huanan seafood market where Covid-19 was initially detected is ideal for "zoonotic transfer" of a virus across the species barrier — wild animals were in close contact with each other and with humans. Yet it is also only 12km from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which houses a large collection of coronaviruses; another institute, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, is even closer. Lab escapes have caused disease outbreaks before") [91] and the Economist ("The first flutterings of lab-leak concern were prompted by simple geography. That market is just 12km away from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), a global centre for coronavirus research. The Wuhan Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which also worked on bat coronaviruses, is closer still: a mere 500 metres") [92] which reinforce this, although I didn't add them as I think it was unnecessary and better to stick to the words that come directly from the scientists' mouths. Jr8825 • Talk 18:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rasmussen's piece does the job. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a major point of speculation. Some sources also mentioned the reason for the proximity of such labs to natural hotspots, which may be useful in the context... —PaleoNeonate – 06:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding politicisation and polarisation, I think a third pair of eyes is needed, as in my view the four sources in that sentence support the statement. Nature (Apr) discusses how some scientists feel the investigations have been impacted by politicisation already (particularly the WHO report), how politicisation makes the investigation far more difficult and how it could eventually make it impossible to get the bottom of the virus's origins (those are "risks" in my book); Nature (May) talks about how some scientists think polticisation and polarisation might make it harder for countries to work together on the investigation and future pandemics, and also could cause bullying & racism; MIT and NYT talks about/quote scientists as saying politicisation has led to polarisation, which has a negative impact on the scientists' willingness to openly discuss their concerns during the investigations. Jr8825 • Talk 18:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating some of my comment above: some sources do mention the context where apparently some scientists feared to propose it because of the Trump administration's controversial claims. Most don't, since it's mostly a question of evidence: if there had been plausible evidence to present, it would have been irrelevant (and a now closed "investigation" group of the previous administration could have been right and could have exposed it)... —PaleoNeonate – 06:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with you on those points I think. I'm just not sure the current prose is a valid paraphrase of all that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that there are several related but separate points here, and I can't think of another way to word them without taking up considerably more space, which is not ideal because they're less important than the overall arc of the sentence (about some scientists agreeing it should be investigated) and it's not a crucial enough to the topic to warrant a full explanation in the lead. If I remember correctly, the original wording (before I rephrased it) was "despite misgivings", which was unclear and vague (readers would be left wondering what those "misgivings" were). It could, of course, just be entirely removed – although the prominent mentions of politicisation in news coverage (in the journals and in the quality news press) mean there's a due weight case for keeping it in. I'm content with the current wording myself, but I'm open to any suggestions. I tried coming up with a more precise paraphrase and it just got longer and longer, maybe someone else can think of something? In particular, it seems there's a nuanced difference about past and future concerns: some scientists say the impact of politicisation on the investigation so far has caused them to avoid voicing their concerns and caused the lab leak theory to be dismissed before it was conclusively examined & disproven; then there are concerns voiced about what might happen if this polarising, political aspect continues, it could result in further pressure on scientists, prevent the cooperation necessary to reach a conclusive answer either way (due to poor US-China relations) and cause polarisation and racism in society. Jr8825 • Talk 14:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add WIV to background section

We need a sentence introducing WIV in the background section. See the rationale and hidden note I provided in this edit summary. Jr8825 • Talk 13:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the sentence you edited? The theory is founded upon circumstantial evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is close in proximity to the pandemic's early outbreak in Hubei, China, and suspicions about the secretiveness of the Chinese government's response to the pandemic. Is there a particular clarification you're suggesting? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to the lead, I'm talking about the
COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Background section. We don't actually properly introduce the WIV in the article body. I don't think it necessarily needs to be a long introduction, but not mentioning what it is and its location is an oversight. The note I left in the text is where I think this might fit in. Jr8825 • Talk 14:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Got you now, I agree. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ and CNN Exclusives on US Intelligence

Please add this WSJ to the claims section: https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-wuhan-lab-fuels-debate-on-covid-19-origin-11621796228

CNN exclusive: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/05/politics/covid-origins-genetic-data-wuhan-lab/index.html

ImmaculateMeddler (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely interesting. But I do think just waiting for the full report from the IC after ~40 more days would be better potentially (assuming the spooks declassify it). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENTISM. If anything, we should just transclude the section from the Investigations article on this. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1037584420"