Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 10

Note: Several of these sources, and many others, are in the Lab leak theory sources box at the top of this Talk page, hidden under the color-coded tabs. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the Chinese Govt behavior amid the investigation of this theory is not covered well here. This is a fact--they've been extremely opaque. Silence is not an admission of guilt, but it's well-established in many systems of law that, upon there being probable cause that there was malfeasance (like that someone was driving under the influence), refusing a test is oftentimes a de facto admission of guilt, and will result in a conviction. By basically engaging in a massive cover-up by not releasing evidence that could prove or disprove the lab leak theory (where is the database that was taken offline? etc.), the chinese government engaged in behavior that can be seen as an admission of guilt. What sort of source would be appropriate for this feature of the lab leak theory? I know we would like to avoid quoting individuals like Alina Chan or other hardline/self-published advocates, even if they're quoted somewhere reliable and secondary, but this isn't scientific, it's a legal/psychology dimension. I'm just unsure what would be appropriate to quote. Science journals? NPR? AP? That Vanity Fair piece? This is an international incident and what type of source is considered impartial when judging the behavior of a major government?... 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless this is reported on by reliable scientific sources (who do not seem to entertain the lack of evidence as evidence of malfeasance), it remains not relevant to the scientific aspect of this article. Of course, the political controversy caused by the lack of transparency by Chinese authorities should (and to some extant, already is, although it might need an update/expansion) be covered based on the usual sources for politics (newspapers, and when/if they are covering this, appropriate academic journals). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You are going about this the wrong way. The way to write wikipedia articles is to find sources about the topic, and then summarize what they say. Not to have a conclusion, and then find sources which agree with that conclusion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I just would like to know before I make a proposal. Thanks! 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"What type of source is considered impartial when judging the behavior of a major government?" It looks like these sources are generally regarded as trustworthy and impartial: Reuters, AP*, PBS*, BBC, and WSJ*. (* News section only; Politics, Opinion, or Fact Check sections may be more partisan.)

See Jurkowitz et al, Pew Research Center, "Trust, Distrust, and Awareness of News Sources"; and various media-bias charts. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of two sources that draw this obvious connection.[1][2] It is absolutely not enough. What we can and should do is document China's non-cooperation, but not in this article. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

From today’s Telegraph “Last week, molecular biologist Alina Chan told Parliament’s Science and Technology Select Committee that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the Covid pandemic initially came from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. ‘We all agree there was a critical event at the [Wuhan] wet market that was a superspreader event caused by humans,’ she said. ‘But there is no evidence pointing to a natural animal origin of the virus at that market.’ There is also nothing to suggest that it was anything other than accidental.”

As the consensus changes the tone of our article is increasingly out of step with the new mainstream. We’ll need a major rewrite, I suggest focusing on the substance of the article rather than the (interesting as it is) history and politics which got us here.

Just my opinion. Springnuts (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

uhmmmmmmmm Alina Chan has felt this way for a very long time. But it is not the consensus opinion of the scientific community. She most certainly does not speak for the scientific consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus that there was a natural origin or a lab leak, so the consensus can be described as "we don't know"...I don't think "the natural origin hypothesis is most likely" being a majority opinion among experts constitutes what we would traditionally deem a scientific consensus. If Alina's position is "we don't know", it seems like it's congruent with the current unrefuted scientific "consensus"...which actually remains "we don't know". 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This is simply erroneous. Many sources will explain why a natural origin is the default hypothesis and the scientific consensus. Others will explain that no evidence of human tempering was found. Even more will explain that yes, it may take decades to find out the exact natural path (if we ever find it). None of that makes an engineered virus, or a leak hypothesis any more likely. So far, known leak incidents have also never resulted in pandemics and are extremely unlikely to, because of standard lab procedures, tracing, etc. As research goes on, more evidence that the features are completely natural surface. And this agrees with what was expected considering that virology and epidemiology were not born yesterday. Arguments like "we know nothing", "we'll never know", "odds are 50/50", "everything is opinion", "it's only considered unlikely because it was tainted by political disinformation" have been repeated over and over and it's not useful to run in circles. —PaleoNeonate – 23:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Support a major rewrite. The old scientific consensus (the majority viewpoint of scientists towards this topic) was clear enough: if the US stops "fomenting" tensions by promoting this theory, the Chinese government may be more forthcoming. That consensus no longer exists. Even Pulitzer winner Michael Hiltzik is reduced to arguing that Chan is wrong because China is secretive about all things. –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That's... not an accurate summary of that article. Regardless, Alina Chan certainly isn't a good source for what is mainstream. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

All that remains is an argument ... Why don’t we know more about the work at the Wuhan Institute, unless the Chinese government is hiding its guilt? ... Basing a conspiracy theory on government secrecy is a dead end. The Chinese are secretive about all things...

says Hiltzik. Our article has been promoting a contrary viewpoint: Some virologists and public health experts ... said that a "hostile" and "divisive" focus on the WIV ... would cause Chinese scientists and authorities to share less ... data. Our article may be out of date. –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And the new book also isn't, of course. Fortunately there are decent enough reviews to evaluate it. —PaleoNeonate – 23:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is not about politics. it's about the origins of the virus. I have seen no policy statements or reasonable articulations of the scientific opinion that prognosticate how to handle international relations. That would be inappropriate for scientists to say, as there are no data to back it up. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

"Data" is plural, your welcome. 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You're (you are)... Muphry's law is in full effect, as always. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That was a lighthearted joke because I hate to be "that guy", so I put in the most embarrassing type of typo while pointing out that one...I see that error ("the data says...") EVERYWHERE, in extremely reputable sources, it's crazy; that said, I'm very prone to typos/grammatical mistakes and so Murphys law would most certainly apply. 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think my point is that the scientific consensus is no longer solid; but our article is written as if it was, so we lack appropriate balance.

The political reasons why the theory was by some propounded and by others rejected should not be as prominent as they are: the scientific arguments should displace them. Springnuts (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And what source are you using to say that the scientific consensus has changed? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Our article on the

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 says investigations may take years, and the results could be inconclusive. If this is true, then we should not declare a scientific consensus on natural origins from of a single review article, and we should be mindful of the data the the authors of that review article say is required for Origin tracing (ref 1). LondonIP (talk

) 00:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You demolish the straw man you set up effectively, but I very specifically did not say that the scientific consensus has changed. But it is no longer solid, and the shifts are all one way. So to answer the question you did not ask; we should reflect fairly the increasing weight of those who previously were firmly of the opinion that this was a nonsense theory who are changing their minds. This from the Guarniad (!) for example way back in June [[3]]. If you wish to exclude all non-scientific sources from this article then could split into two articles: one on the raw science; one on the psychology and politics - which are fascinating in their own right. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You talk about a shift in scientific consensus, but have provided exactly zero sourcing for that and instead link an opinion piece in the Guardian (!) as if that were relevant. So, what sources are you using to draw the conclusion that there has been a shift? VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I would describe it as a shift in scientists' opinions. There is no scientific consensus, as that will take many years to form. The shift began with the DARPA proposal leak by DRASTIC, and the comments from Alexander Kekulé and Simon Wain-Hobson, mentioned here. Chan et al in MBE and Graner et al in Cell mark a continued shift. LondonIP (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

1) DRASTIC are not scientists, nor are they a credible or reliable source (for Wikipedia or otherwise), and what else you say seems to be

WP:PRIMARY source for the opinion of its authors) on that by some other researchers is appropriate counter-balance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 03:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

1) The DRASTIC leak is referenced in a huge array of RS, so whether DRASTIC are or not scientists isn't relevant. 2) Chan significantly changed her position due to that leak, and a number of very prominent virologists gave commentary on it too, all of which are in RS cited on the page already. 3) You are right that its a primary source, but my point was that it marks a shift in opinion. The Holmes et al is not the last word in the origins debate, and it will go on for many years to come. LondonIP (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The DRASTIC leak is referenced in a huge array of RS, so whether DRASTIC are or not scientists isn't relevant This is about a "shift in scientific consensus". Are you saying that anybody can magically create such a shift in scientific consensus by writing something and getting newspapers write about it without any involvement by scientists?

You still need

WP:OR to conclude that it has shifted, would not be enough even if the OR made a tiny bit of sense. --Hob Gadling (talk

) 16:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Or even a lot of sense, come to think of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Would you at least be content for the article to acknowledge and reflect the systemic bias against the theory; eg (from the Telegraph again): Angus Dalgleish, a professor of Oncology and vaccine researcher at St George’s Hospital in Tooting says that journals refused to consider a paper he wrote last year observing that the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 - the virus which causes Covid 19 - showed signs of man-made genetic sequences. What made it especially difficult, he says, was that the man-made theory had been expounded by Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump’s Secretary of State. “No scientist was willing to get into bed and agree with Trump,” Dalgleish says. In other words, what ought to be an objective process - a journal assessing the quality of science, aided by a peer-review process - was subverted by partisan politics.”? This might indicate the desirability of splitting the article as indicated above into “pure” science and the political/psychological side which I would be grateful for views on. Springnuts (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Angus Dalgleish's opinion on why his paper was rejected isn't worth mentioning, whether or not it's uncritically parroted in the Telegraph. Maybe the paper's nonacceptance has more to do with it being outside of his discipline (oncology) that it does with its political alignment, and maybe Dalgleish's right-wing political aspirations make him susceptible to interpreting this sort of thing as persecution of the right. No, splitting the article is not a good idea. It's not long enough to merit a content fork, and even if it were, splitting along that line would be a constant POVFORK headache. VQuakr (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

E pur si muove. I’m done. Springnuts (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

More Quadros than Galilei, and if you really think there's any parallel here between yourself and the latter then maybe you're not in the right headspace to be editing in this subject area right now. Getting rejected from a journal with a 4% acceptance rate isn't evidence of something untoward. VQuakr (talk

) 17:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Arguments that standard practice like peer review is systematic bias are never useful... —PaleoNeonate – 23:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? I am choosing for the moment not to restore, partly because a user may have the right to remove their own contributions, and partly because I'm unclear on relevant policy. [4] Adoring nanny (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I've restored it. Doesn't even need discussion really. Not appropriate to delete talk page threads, of experienced editors, with multiple respondents, that do not violate policy. If that happened to me I'd be pretty annoyed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I invite VQuakr (talk to comment. Springnuts (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that this was inappropriate, talk page discussion should not be removed even in cases like this. I would wager that the editor who removed it had a momentary lapse in judgement, something that has happened to many of us. As long as it doesn't become a pattern of behavior, it's probably not actionable. But it would be good for the user to acknowledge the lapse. Even if I agree with their sentiment, I cannot agree with their actions. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Since the only replies at the time were from VQuakr and that the argument was questionable I can understand the delete as TPO/NOTFORUM compliant. If there were other replies hatting would have been a better choice. In any case, it was a bold action that was reverted, which is also fine. —PaleoNeonate – 23:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This source [10] states that the lab leak theory is wrong based on a statement by Shi Zhengli that all workers at the WIV tested negative. That's akin to stating that the theory is wrong because Shi said so. Therefore, I've removed it. Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology denied having carried out engineering and gain of function experiments on SARS-CoV-2but only on SARS-CoV in published and openly displayed international collaborations (Cohen, 2020). Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2Adoring nanny (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

No, your disliking one sentence from a NCBI source is not adequate reason to remove. Your quote is selective and not representative of the entire source, either. VQuakr (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I would add that this particular "logic", if one wants to use that term, appears to be a pattern for Frutos.[11] WIV staff members have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 and were reported negative (Cohen, 2020). The Cohen source Frutos is referring to is this one [12]. The logic Frutos is using amounts to "Shi said that all WIV staff and students tested negative. Therefore, all WIV staff and students tested negative." Adoring nanny (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Repeating yourself doesn't make what you're saying true. Though regardless, I'm unclear on why you think that what you say makes the source unreliable/unusable. VQuakr (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

After thinking about this a bit, I have a suggestion which may be better than my original idea of removing Frutos. What about treating it per

WP:WIKIVOICE? Chan argues extensively in [13] that Shi cannot be trusted. We have one scholar trusting Shi, while another explicitly says she cannot be trusted. The question is relevant to the lab leak theory, so we should cover it. Adoring nanny (talk

) 15:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

We should not be using non-scholarly non-peer reviewed sources to shape how we view scholarly sources. per

WP:SCHOLARSHIP, peer-reviewed publications in expert-edited journals are how we determine what should and should not be in wiki-voice. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 15:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

In that case, how would you suggest handling the Frutos papers? Do you believe that Shi's statements that LL is false should gain WikiVoice status because Frutos accepts them? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Frutos' paper is an acceptable source for (most) statements in Wikivoice, not only because it is a peer-reviewed, secondary source, in a reputable journal, but because it also agrees with the mainstream viewpoint (as acknowledged even by the leak proponents). Chan is in the distinct minority and is not appropriate counter-balance, especially not if it is a non-scholarly non-peer-reviewed book. Frutos' arguments obviously are not limited to the mere strawman you have chosen to attack here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Frutos' arguments obviously are not limited to the mere strawman you have chosen to attack here. Other than the "strawman" part, this is correct. Here is the conclusion of his argument: Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2.(emphasis added). Here Frutos is stating something he has no way of knowing. The most that he could reasonably state is that he has not observed any evidence. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

"currently", "observed" "known" are all implied. It would be meaningless and unscientific to declare that "no evidence could exist." And this is why Frutos (and others) do not do this. There's a reason we attach publication dates to journal articles...

The level of critique in this thread is not productive and will not get us very far. We are not peer-reviewers. We summarize what the

WP:BESTSOURCES say. And many sources say this, not just Frutos. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 17:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, based on y'all's insistence that we say exactly what the source says, I've added[14] a more complete description of Frutos' reasoning. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• All scientists' opinions should be dated and attributed. I disagree about WP:SCHOLARSHIP being the WP:BESTSOURCES on this topic, as we all know the Chinese government has a gag order in effect on Chinese publications, and we also know that they aren't cooperating with the WHO on further studies. Since this is a political controversy, scientific opinion alone is not an adequate representation of accepted knowledge on the origins of this virus, and there is an undue
  WP:WEIGHT issue with presenting scientist opinions as consensus. On the limits of scholarship, it took a candid conversation between Peter Palese and Chi-Ming Chu to uncover the [man made] origins of the 1977 Russian flu. LondonIP (talk
  ) 02:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  That you wish to ignore the better sources as well as Wikipedia policy and instead give false equivalence to your preferred ones is your own problem and not Wikipedia's. That this is a political controversy does not mean that suddenly non-academic sources get the same weight as proper ones. See

  WP:MAINSTREAM. This is not a "popularity contest in low-quality publications". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

  ) 06:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  @LondonIP: Frutos and colleagues argue (in passing) that many people who still question the zoonotic-emergence paradigm are trying to cause trouble for China: The origin of SARS-Cov-2 is still passionately debated since it makes ground for geopolitical confrontations and conspiracy theories besides scientific ones. This (rather formulaic) prefatory verbiage likely made it easier for the journal's politically sophisticated editorial board to publish their article, which includes a potentially sensitive mention of the 2004 Beijing lab leak:

  Another hypothesis is the accidental infection of laboratory staff working on naturally occurring Sarbecoviruses. Accidents happen and have already been reported during the SARS epidemic in Taiwan, Singapore and China. ... It happened in Beijing in 2004 ...

  As a warranted compromise, you could add Frutos's information to our article, along with appropriate neutralizing language (like, there is today no evidence that such an accident had happened with SARS-CoV-2). –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Dervorguilla: there is certainly no evidence that an accident happened with SARS-CoV-2, but that's obviously because there hasn't been any serious investigation, which the paper fails to mention. I don't see any good use for this paper, but we can add it for that statement. LondonIP (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note this has been queried at
  talk
  ) 08:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  Duly closed. There was no good reason to start a new discussion there which duplicates the one here. I've left a short notice that this is already under discussion here, and those interested can likely find their way back... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  Well, to be fair, it is always acceptable to escalate legitimate disputes to relevant noticeboards. But no one should be surprised when those discussions just further confirm the consensus of the talk page. And no one should be surprised when content disputes with obvious answers are looked down upon. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said at RSN (permalink). —PaleoNeonate – 23:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• copying what I said at the other page:

Though we do not presently have an article on him, Frutos is a notable scientist, as shown by his citation record in Google, and an expert in the general subject field, and has published other articles on the origin of Covid19 and similar viruses. The journal is Infection, Genetics and Evolution, published by a major scientific publisher, and meting the criteria for notability of scientific journals. There is no reason not to use the paper as a reference. To say on WP that the paper made an unjustified statement, we would need another similarly reliable source saying so. The several steps in the analysis above (i.e, F in his paper made use of a paper by C that reported a statement by S that may possibly not have represented S's true opinion) amounts to Original research. The paper is open access, so anyone who wishes to make judgements can read it for themselves. That's why we have the policy WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• "They have dismissed the theory based in part on Shi's emailed answers" This sentence is POV, based on implication, context, placement, and wording. This concept, as far as I know, does not exist in secondary RSes. It should not be added to the article, as it creates a very obvious perception of doubting the claims of scientists. We do not describe in detail everything Frutos uses to say X, because that would be UNDUE. We don't do it for any other part of his argument, so we should not do it for this part of his argument, simply because some Wikipedia users disagree with Frutos on it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Quoting directly from the Frutos source[15]: Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology denied having carried out engineering and gain of function experiments on SARS-CoV-2but only on SARS-CoV in published and openly displayed international collaborations (Cohen, 2020). Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2.

Based on the above, a statement that scientists have rejected LL based in part on Shi's emailed answers is simply following the source. Given the chorus of users above who insist that we should do exactly that, I find the revert message here [16] difficult to understand. What is "POV" about sticking to the source? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC) corrected Adoring nanny (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This is

talk

) 12:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Cherrypicking the C word from Frutos et al to describe all lab leak scenarios would violate

WP:NPOV. The matter will only be put to bed when China cooperates with the WHO for further studies, instead of pressuring them to drop it. LondonIP (talk

) 03:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's why we have the following sentence in the article: According to emailed statements by Shi Zhengli in July 2021, her lab has not conducted any unpublished gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses, and all WIV staff and students tested negative for the virus in the early days of the pandemic. I believe this to be an encyclopedic summary of the content you have provided. The sentence on Frutos' thought processes, however, includes selective details which create an unwarranted POV. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The source clearly states the reason for the logical inference. Other part of the article discuss logical inferences. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Logical inference is another way of saying

talk

) 13:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It's Frutos' inference, not mine. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Except it's not in the source.

talk

) 13:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we condense and paraphrase. Therefore, the article should not say "Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology denied having carried out engineering and gain of function experiments on SARS-CoV-2". Instead, I wrote a shortened, paraphrased version of that, which included the most critical information, namely that Frutos bases his conclusion on Shi's emailed answers. By doing it this way, it also encompasses the fact, stated elsewhere in Frutos' paper, that he bases a part of his conclusion on the fact that Shi wrote that WIV students and staff had tested negative. It is routine and normal for us to condense lengthy portions of papers down to their paraphrased essence. To quote

WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words. That is what I have done.Adoring nanny (talk

) 13:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

stated elsewhere in Frutos' paper, that he bases a part of his conclusion on the fact that Shi wrote that WIV students and staff had tested negative Where does it say this in the source? Could you provide a quote? Additionally, where does it say the other parts of what he uses to make his inferences? Because we should include those other reasons as well. We should not selectively include certain reasons and exclude others, simply because you find certain reasons to be insufficient. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

But staff members of the Wuhan Institute of Virology have all been tested negative indicating that no accident occurred there (Cohen, 2020) Adoring nanny (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

you seem to be omitting a great deal of other reasoning that goes into this statement in context. For example:

• • One must remember that SARS-CoV-2 was never found in the wild and that RaTG13 does not exist as real virus but instead only as a sequence in a computer
  • This hypothesis has been considered as “extremely unlikely” by the official WHO investigation team
  • Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it.

It does not rest solely on the fact of negative test results. And so we should not include only that part of the picture to the exclusion of these other parts. And, frankly, I do not think it would be

WP:DUE to include all of these, so we should probably not include any of them or, indeed, any philosophizing about why Frutos et al wrote what they wrote. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 13:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hence my correction above -- "based in part" Adoring nanny (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised we don't mention anything about the Paris Group and the series of open letters they published. LondonIP (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is surprising. They have not had anything published in a peer reviewed journal, and the way the article works this pretty much rules them out. I believe the article needs rewriting and restructuring so that such views were included; but I don't think that's going to happen. Springnuts (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC).

This is a repackaging of DRASTIC to make it more legitimate... We already discuss these events in this article (at a surface level, as is appropriate for a more general article), and we also discuss it in more depth in the

Not sure the relevance of an editor's opinion that something is a "repackaging" of something else "to make it more legitimate". Adoring nanny (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It's relevant because we already have versions of this content in the

DRASTIC article and elsewhere, just not labelled as "the Paris group." It has very little to do with the actual lab leak theory itself, and much more to do with the Investigations of the origins, and with the people in this story, Daszak and DRASTIC. It's clearly very appropriate for those pages, and based on this source could probably be expanded on those pages. But nothing about this has anything to do with the actual theory of the lab leak. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 15:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that if you want to treat DRASTIC and the Paris Group as the same entity, this could be supported if you have

WP:OR. Adoring nanny (talk

) 19:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to put that text into the article. WP:OR applies only to article text. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added the fact that DRASTIC leaked the DEFUSE proposal. I'm not sure anything else would be particularly

WP:DUE here. The theory itself is not changed by these letters. The letters are political about Daszak and the EHA, and the WHO. I'm not sure they have much to do with formulating the theory itself. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 16:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the Paris Group, and the four open letters they published. LondonIP (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What do the four open letters have to do with the lab leak theory itself? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Because they mention the theory and were covered in multiple secondary sources? A big part of this theory is the incredible resistance of the Chinese government to investigate it, helped along by certain scientists and journals [17] [18]. We should probably also mention the struggle it took to create (and unblank) this very page [19] [20]. LondonIP (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is already mentioned at the appropriate page:

WP:UNDUE here, as the vast majority of articles primarily about the lab leak hypothesis do not mention wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 23:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)