Talk:DRASTIC/Archive 1

How should the first sentence of this article refer to its subject? This inevitably affects the rest of the article, but this is the crux of the issue. Four basic options:

• Option A: "DRASTIC is Twitter group promoting COVID-19 conspiracy theories, in particular the lab leak idea."
• Option B: "DRASTIC...is an organization of amateur researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea."

  EDIT: (B was what the article had when this RfC was created [15])

• Option C: "DRASTIC...is an organization of conspiracy theorists and amateur researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea."
• Option D: (Option B), but then we mention elsewhere in the lead that the group "have been labeled conspiracy theorists." by scientists and journalists.

  EDIT: (This article has no body vs lead at the moment, it's 99% lead, so excuse the indelicacy in that wording.)

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Edits made 22:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option E: "conspiracy theorist" accusations are provided with attribution in the body of the article, per
  WP:DUE
  : "A CNET article said that they had been "branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists""
• Option F: "conspiracy theorist" accusations are provided without attribution in the body of the article: "They have been "branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists""
• Option G: accusations are provided without attribution in the voice of the encyclopedia in the lead: "DRASTIC...is an organization of maniacs, thugs, and conspiracy theorists".

jp×g 18:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

One more basic option:

• Option H: is a loose organization of scientists and amateur researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea. (status quo).

Adoring nanny (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, please strike your above statement that your suggested option H was the status quo when this RfC was formed, it was not. Option B was, as I've indicated above with a diff showing the state of the article from before I authored this RfC. Thank you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Strong support for A & C, weak support for D, here's why:

1. It's how several of the team's own members refer to themselves.

2. It's how several

WP:RSes

refer to the subject, and how others have referred to the group.

3. Theories about various actors conspiring together are quite literally what the group repeatedly proposes:

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)-- 20:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Fringe theories noticeboard. 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the

Neutral Point of View noticeboard

. 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the

Biography of Living Persons noticeboard

. 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• D for now, maybe C if we flip it around to "amateur researchers and conspiracy theorists". I think we're somewhat stuck with enough non-critical press and not enough critical press to label them otherwise. Made all the more difficult by the pseudonymity and relatively loose organization.

  For instance, the "live bats in the WIV" video that we have only a Newsweek citation for would be a critical example, if they could be shown to be a misinformation producer. Nobody else even remotely reliable seems to have picked up the story, either to confirm or debunk it, at least nobody linking it to DRASTIC. IMO, this is a sign they're too small to be notable, but that vote has already been lost, so this is where we're at for now.

  If we use the first two quotes (from members), I think the first one is the kind of thing we'd have to base such a claim on. "Some members consider themselves 'on the conspiracy side of the fence'", which feels a bit weak to be worth adding. The second claim they're explicitly rejecting the term 'conspiracy', calling it a misnomer. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  Fair criticisms. They often do recognize that they've been called that way, but some definitely reject the label, while others seem to embrace it. I could definitely get behind C with the flip in order. Tomato tomato.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment because you're seeking to call them conspiracy theorists (a pejorative term) in Wikivoice, can you please provide examples of sources that call them that? Geogene (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  I did several times above.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  No, you didn't. What you engaged is BLP violation by original research. You also have grossly misinterpreted this El Pais piece, which does not call them conspiracy theorists in any way [16]. Geogene (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, I'm sorry to have upset you. If you'd like to report me to ANI or ArbE, be my guest. I don't believe I've done what you've just accused me of at all. I was very clear about which pieces of evidence I cited were quotes and which were supposition/interpretation. You and I having different interpretations of the source does not make what I've put on a talk page a BLP violation. I never hid that or misled anyone about that in any way. I'll even add a disclaimer if it makes you feel better.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  And your Source 2 in the "Quotes from members of the group describing a tendency for "conspiracy" beliefs." (pink) box does not support your claim that they refer to themselves as conspiracy theorists. In fact, it says they (DRASTIC) reject the appellation "conspiracy". — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  Clarified. Thanks for the input. I didn't expect that box to be the most controversial, but now that I see that it is, clarification is probably in order.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Of the options present I support option H (added after this post was made) option B and to a lesser extent option D (my choices before H was proposed), with the caveat that is not entirely amateur and should be ...loosely defined group of scientists and amateur researchers.... The introductory sentence should plainly state what they are in terms as least loaded as possible, and the complexity of the issue should not be shoe-horned into a single sentence or phrase. The entire rest of the article can be composed of basic verifiable facts, as well as opinions from scientists, public health officials, and other significant viewpoints. From my (of course incomplete) reading of multiple sources, the organization has stimulated research, attracted legitimate scientists, and of course irritated the consensus-holding majority of virologists for pursuing aspects of the
  lab leak hypothesis which is often called a conspiracy theory, or lumped in with other conspiracies/misinformation regarding Wuhan lab origin. I dislike options A or C because we should not cherry-pick (nor downplay) quotes from affiliated websites, tweets, blogs, or and primary or self-published sources, nor select quotes deep within RS's to characterize the first sentence. We should look to how DRASTIC is first introduced in various media outlets to structure our introduction (omissions indicated by ellipses are primarily to reduce repeating what the acronym stands for):

  • Rowan Jacobsen writing for Newsweek: The people responsible for uncovering this evidence are not journalists or spies or scientists. They are a group of amateur sleuths... They call themselves DRASTIC. [17]
  • Also from Newsweek: DRASTIC, which discovered the recently published footage, is composed of about two dozen or so amateur sleuths and correspondents, many anonymous, working across the world. [18]
  • Katherine Eban writing in Vanity Fair: As they posted their findings on Twitter, they were soon joined by others around the world. Some were cutting-edge scientists at prestigious research institutes. Others were science enthusiasts. Together, they formed a group called DRASTIC. Their stated objective was to solve the riddle of COVID-19's origin. [19]
  • From CNET: a loosely defined group known as Drastic
  • From 20 minutes (Google translated from French): DRASTIC... is a multidisciplinary collective, made up of around thirty people , in particular Asian researchers, who are was created on Twitter in February 2020. [20]
  • From The Hindu: Calling themselves DRASTIC... a group of amateurs decided to sniff the lab leak theory to the ground. [21]
  • James B. Meigs in Commentary: One key group was an international assortment of independent researchers—few of whom were established virologists—that self-assembled on the Internet. The group called itself... DRASTIC [22]

  These articles neutrally cover DRASTIC in varying levels of detail. They all nod to the effect that aspects of lab leak are controversial, rejected, ridiculed etc. But they don't explicitly call DRASTIC a conspiracy group, and thus neither should Wikipedia (at least not in the first sentence). Even if everything DRASTIC studies turns out to be false, casually reducing them as misinformants, disinformants, or conspiracy theorists in a single introductory sentence ignores downplays the nuance that the rest of the article should describe. Reactions from virologists of the mainstream view are of course dismissive and should be included. However we have reactions like "The DRASTIC people are doing better research than the U.S. government," says David Asher, a former senior investigator under contract to the State Department. and As they posted their findings, the DRASTIC researchers attracted new allies. Among the most prominent was Jamie Metzl[23]; as well as virologist Jesse Bloom, one of the country's most respected COVID-19 researchers, became the first major scientific figure to publicly legitimize DRASTIC's contributions. "Yes, I follow the work," he tweeted, sending tremors through the scientific establishment. "I don't agree [with] all of it, but some parts seem important & correct."[24]. The organization cannot also be dismissed as purely amateurs nor purely pseudonymous because both RSs and the official website include affiliated researchers by name. Shibbolethink, the quotes presented in box 2 use terms like "branded" or "labelled as conspiracy theorists" which is different than stating "are conspiracy theorists" in Wikipedia's voice, and sweep away all nuance I've described here. By all means, let's put in block quotes by Peter Daszak calling the group conspiracy mongers. But start the article as plainly and incontrovertible as possible. --Animalparty! (talk
  ) 21:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  I get what you're saying, and broadly agree (in support of D), except for any use of David Asher's opinions here. Which I would emphatically disagree with. The man is not a virologist, and has no training of any kind in virology, biology, or lab work. Why should we trust his opinion of this group? What expertise does he have to draw from in that opinion?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  The real world exists outside of peer-reviewed articles published solely in top-tier virology journals. And we are not required to only use the opinions of virologists when referring to a social group. The organization itself is not a biomedical topic although it's related to biomedical topics: the

  WP:NPOV. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Updated to Option H. --Animalparty! (talk

  ) 18:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  A note that Newsweek is not considered reliable by

  WP:RSOPINION. Morbidthoughts (talk

  ) 00:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option D Animalparty's analysis of the sources is compelling evidence that reliable sources do not describe the group as, first and foremost, a group of conspiracy theorists. That being said, I think there is enough coverage in RS to justify including the promotion of conspiracy theories in the lead. Zoozaz1 talk 21:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option C or D. I think it's especially important our description accurately reflects that their investigations are amateur and decidedly not scientific research. JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option C is best. Option A is incomplete and Option B misleading (unless "the lab leak idea" is changed to "promoting the lab leak conspiracy theory". Daveosaurus (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option C. "Researchers" is definitely not the right word for people who accuse scientists they disagree with of secretly working for a dictatorship, so to use the word "researchers alone in the definition would generate a false impression. That accusation alone proves that conspiracy theorists are among them. Since there are sources using that term, there is no problem with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option E. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and certainly not original research into whether people are bozos or not. None of the articles cited by Shibbolethink in the opening for this RfC say that they are conspiracy theorists. None of the examples provided demonstrate what they're being claimed to:
  1. They do not refer to themselves as conspiracy theorists; they are describing accusations made against them.
     • A member of the group said that, at some point in the past, "we were called crazy".
     • Another member of the group said that magazines had been "mislabelling it as conspiracy". This is not "referring to themselves as" anything. If I say "Jimmy Johnson called me a bastard", this does not prove I am a bastard. "I have learned to be on the bastard side of the fence" is not the same thing as "I am a bastard".
  2. None of the provided sources say that they're conspiracy theorists. They are exclusively describing remarks made by others (including random people on Twitter).
     • In the Vanity Fair article, the phrase "people felt they were absolutely determined to fight against what they saw as a conspiracy of this magnitude" appears nowhere. Google points me to a transcript of a podcast where the Vanity Fair author is shooting the breeze with two comedy talk-show hosts. This is not a reliable source and I don't see why it's relevant; furthermore, in the sentence this quote has been taken from, she appears to be talking about something Donald Trump said. Afterwards in the transcript we have "For many, the announcement felt like a big change, putting what had been a conspiracy theory about the virus' origins back on the table". A journalist saying "people once thought JPxG was a bastard" is not the same as a journalist saying "JPxG is a bastard".
     • The El Pais quote, similarly, says that some people had considered them to be conspiracy theorists. It does not say that they are conspiracy theorists. It says that they were branded as conspiracy theorists at some point in 2020.
       1. The CNET quote, similarly, says that they were "branded" as conspiracy theorists. It does not say that they are conspiracy theorists. It says that some "scientists and researchers", at some point, called them that. It also says they were called "maniacs" and "thugs"; this also does not belong in the lead.
  3. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia.
     • The enormous collapsed box of primary sources below the quotes, and the attempts at doing original research based on them in this thread, are irrelevant both to this RfC and to the purpose of the project. Being a "conspiracy theory", generally, means that something is incorrect. For example, neither the
       ARBCOM sanctions in effect on the subject for this reason, and would recommend involved parties to tread lightly. jp×g
       09:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option D - Most sources provided don't directly describe them as conspiracy theorists, that description appearing only in quotes and accusations leveled at them by third parties, usually unnamed. Furthermore, using quotes from inside a community claiming that they were accused of being conspiracy theorists in order to support describing them as conspiracy theorists is a stunning achievement in circular logic. It also probably falls foul of
  WP:OR. PraiseVivec (talk
  ) 11:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option D, per PraiseVivec and Zoozaz1 Idealigic (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option D or E: Per other comments on this page. Again. it's OK to wait for the sources to decide what they are. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option D per Zoozaz1, PraiseVivec and jp×g, with attribution; Use the term sleuths as in sources, instead of researchers. Terjen (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Option B, E or similar as an alternative - we don't have to smear the group with a contentious label in the lead. Terjen (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option D The reliable sources that mentioned them didn't classified them as conspiracy theorists. Sea Ane (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option B - per
  WP:NPOV. If "conspiracy theorists" really is a significant viewpoint for this group, I would expect to see that label widely used by reliable sources. The sourcing here is very weak for a contentious label. Find better sourcing or leave it out altogether. Isaidnoway (talk)
  03:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option C or D per
  talk
  ) 17:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option C let's start with a harsh label and see if it ages well, their members seem to misbehave without consequences or repudiation, which is a red flag to any organization reputation. Forich (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Most of those descriptions will not stand the test of time well. Of all of them, "amateur researchers" is the least likely to have a bad look as more information comes to light. Some of the information they've dug up is straightforward and solid. Calling the whole group of them "conspiracy theorists," for example, is patently absurd. "Internet researchers" is probably the most appropriate label, and this is not in the list of options for this RfC. I'm sometimes dismayed at how much some Wikipedia editors have an ax to grind in their pursuit of defending what they imagine to be the scientific consensus. I wish Wikipedia could work out a way to defend itself from such opinionated editors. modify 23:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option H (first choice). Of the remaining options, Option B is least bad. Would prefer no adjective. Internet researchers is also not bad. Some sources credit them with "breaking the dam" on the lab-leak theory. The Vanity Fair article even quotes someone who says they do better than the US Government. [25][26] Adoring nanny (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Options A, E, and F, in that order. Absolutely NO to B, C, or any formulation which refers to "researchers", no matter what adjective you stick in front of that noun. These are not "researchers" in any meaningful way. I don't even understand why they have an article, other than on the purely technical grounds of persuading some reporters looking for filler to write about them. --Calton | Talk 03:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  And just to be absolutely clear No to Option H, which is an abuse of the term "researcher", and in no way reflects reality. --Calton | Talk 03:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment loose group of internet/digital activists would be a neutral term, unless you have quotable reference for using the term conspiracy theorists J mareeswaran (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• None. I think this is not a valid RfC because any proper RfC must include "status quo" version, i.e. this is a loose organization of scientists and amateur researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea. This is version I would vote for. Here is why. Quickly looking at the list of their publications at https://drasticresearch.org/, I think that at least some of them do qualify as scientific publications. It does not mean that authors are right about anything. But dismissing all participants as non-scientists would be wrong I believe. On the other hand, most publications criticizing the group look like "activist" journalistic RS. Probably the best version would be "B", but labeling all members of the group as "amateur researchers" would be wrong, simply because many of them are affiliated with academic institutions according to linking in their articles. Hence labeling all of them as such would be an obvious WP:BLP violation. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  My very best wishes, as far as I can tell none of them are professional virologists/epidemiologists, all but four(?) of the authors of the two papers they have published lack any research funding, and the four who do have professions in biomedicine were not funded for this research. Neither of the papers lists funding sources, which makes sense: I would be extremely surprised if the four who work in actual science positions were permitted to use the resources from their jobs to do the "research" published in the papers (since SARS-CoV-2 origin speculation is so far afield from what their funding agencies actually cover (mycology, urology, and neuroscience)). Because their COVID stuff is not professionally funded, their present research is by definition amateur and it is appropriate to use that descriptor. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  It does not matter if they are virologists. It also does not matter how they are funded. But it is important that some of them are officially affiliated with scientific institutions and are arguably scientists. This is because we are effectively saying that ALL of them are not professional scientists in all versions except "A". This is a strong defamatory statement, which I believe it is wrong and not really supported by sources, at least with regard to some people whose articles appear on the website. Things like that arguably should be removed per

  WP:BLP. You can not say that non-experts in a certain field are simply not professional scientists. Yes, you can only say they are regarded as not experts in this field if this is true. I am not at all certain because a lot of people do cross-discipline studies, which is fine. My very best wishes (talk

  ) 01:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  My very best wishes, I get what you are saying but I think it is more misleading to use "researcher" or "scientist" without any modifier as it incorrectly implies expertise in the topic they are investigating.* I think it is reasonable to call them "amateur researchers" since their origin research is, by definition, amateur, but "amateur investigators is also perfectly fine.

  * None of them have published in virology or epidemiology; Segreto's research is the closest by far but is still very distant from viral genetics, evolution, or engineering. Cross-disciplinary research involves applying one's expertise or tools in one field to solve problems in another field (like an x-ray crystallographer getting into COVID research through analysis of its crystal structure); but what they're doing in their papers is just straight-up jumping into virology proper. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I would rather agree with Orange Mike below who said: that "amateur researchers" is a euphemism used almost exclusively by conspiracy theorists, usually with no expertise whatsoever, to describe what they are doing. Given that, I would be very hesitant to call an "amateur researcher" anyone with peer-reviewed scientific publications on the subject [27]. Sure, the scientific level of such researchers vary widely, from visionaries to fresh graduate students, and yes, people who originally received a different education or mostly work in another field. Let's just not use any words like "scientists", "researchers" etc. That would solve it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  The sources use the term amateur sleuths, which is paraphrased as amateur researchers here. But the latter term can be confused with amateur scientists and should be avoided, as the above discussion demonstrates. Terjen (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I've added a status quo option above. Note to closer: this was added after a lot of people had already given their opinions. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I agree. Several other users recommended "internet sleuths" which encompasses both amateur and professional scientists, since this is not their professional area of expertise. I would draw a parallel to the case of

  Zodiac killer situation. Lots and lots of people at the NSA participate in those online discussions, but they're still internet sleuths in that capacity.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

  ) 15:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option D - Majority of the reliable sources provided don't directly describe them as conspiracy theorists. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The statement of this RFC is not
  WP:RFCNEUTRAL and should therefore incorporate more options. Also, I think there are more important matters we should be working on, like expanding the "findings" section of the article. CutePeach (talk
  ) 15:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  It was certainly neutral at the time of preparation. It had the status quo at that time, it included other options as requested, some of which were even duplicative. No need to call POV when examining something through the lens of time in a fast moving article, thank you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong A - "amateur researchers" is a euphemism used almost exclusively by conspiracy theorists, usually with no expertise whatsoever, to describe what they are doing. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option H (and mention conspiracy theorists somewhere, per Option D). I think Option H is the version best supported by sources at the current time. I would also encourage us to mention that scientists call them conspiracy theorists in the article somewhere, since the CNET article supports this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Novem Linguae, would you consider tacking on "a mix of Option H and D" to your vote, for the purposes of helping evaluate consensus for non-wiki voice inclusion of the label "conspiracy theorists" ? I understand if the answer is no, just wanted to ask. This is gonna be a dumpster fire of a close no matter what we do, but I would like to make it easier for whoever does it in whatever way we can. Thank you--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, good idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• A is adequate and impersonal. Any reader who does not understand the implied criticism wouldn't be persuaded by strnger language anyway. JonRichfield (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option H The RfC is, first of all, flawed. Most options seem to contain an innuendo to label them as "conspiracy theorists" in some or the other place; this label has been given to them only by their worst critics (and Daszak's ilk). Their actions have been recognized and lauded by many; describing them as conspiracy theorists is
  WP:UNDUE, unless we mention it as passing criticism (eg. "they have been criticized as conspiracy theorists by their detractors"). Option H, which was inserted at a later stage, seems to be the only pragmatic choice. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk
  ) 14:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option H If it wasn't for these people there were probably still articles by Peter Daszak confirming what has never been confirmed and the rest of the world hanging from his mouth. They have been intensely accused in the past of being crazy and conspiracy theorists, some do it even today, so I would insert it but specifying that in the light of today's facts they have shown that in reality they were the only ones capable of having a strong scientific spirit in a moment when Galileo was turning in his grave, opening eyes to the whole world. --Francesco espo (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option H This seems to be the least inflammatory and most accurate of all the choices. Thriley (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option H per my comments in this thread above. But again, this is a tainted RfC because (a) new answers were posted after people voted, and (b) the text under discussion was re-edited at will during standing RfC. Saying that, I think current version "internet activists" is more or less good, except that they are simply "activists". Just debating something on the internet does not make anyone "internet activist". My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option D As per other users mentioned/explained (totally) in regards to "Option D"... Ali Ahwazi (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option H, possibly Option D. The sources provided by Animalparty! do not call them conspiracy theorists and treat them seriously. The examples of RS referring to them as conspiracy theorists listed by Shibbolethink in the first post look cherry-picked to me. E.g., CNET does say "This unorthodox approach has seen them branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists" but they also say "But over the past year the group's discoveries have proven too important to ignore" and "The group, known as Drastic, has investigated, corrected, uncovered and agitated in a quest to uncover the pandemic's starting point" so they are not fully on board with the characterisation. Alaexis_¿question? 09:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• It's a sourced fact that China is playing games with the science in an effort to influence public opinion about the origin of covid.[28] In light of this, your description of a Chinese cover-up as a "conspiracy theory" is misplaced. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option H best reflects RS to date. CutePeach (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment those that voted for Option D before Option H became available should be notified in case they want to change their vote. Pinging Zoozaz1, Idealigic, PraiseVivec, Terjen, Sea Ane, BristolTreeHouse. CutePeach (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended discussion

It seems strange to me that every option presented in this RfC includes calling them "conspiracy theorists" in wikivoice in the lead. This doesn't seem warranted at all; per my argument above, the only "evidence" of them being conspiracy theorists is that a couple of articles said that unspecified people had called them conspiracy theorists at some point in the year 2020 (and either going on to say that it wasn't true, or going on to say that this had happened in the past). This doesn't really justify mentioning it in the lead. I propose an Option E, where the lead does not call them conspiracy theorists at all, and it's mentioned in the body in a

Options B and D do not include calling them "conspiracy theorists" in wikivoice in the lead. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah JPxG, what you've described is essentially option D, but you'd rather we put the "has been called conspiracy theorists" in the body of the article. That's fine with me, especially since this article doesn't really have a lead versus a body at the moment. I'm sorry that you found my set of options problematic, and I'm glad you added your own that you felt more comfortable with.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I also wanted to add, by the time we have enough reliable source coverage of this group to actually have a lead vs body, we probably also will have a better idea of whether it is appropriate to call them "conspiracy theorists" in the body, lead, or in wiki-voice or attribution. Right now, I think you're probably right, that calling them conspiracy theorists with attribution is the way to go. A lot of arguments posted above swayed me on that. I'll wait for this RfC to expire or for someone to close or whatever, but as of now I plan on going the E route, which is indistinguishable from D. That's my read of the consensus via compromise anyway.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It's choice architecture presenting the options in a way that nudges/bounds our decisions. Also, note the current version in the lede is missing from the alternatives. Terjen (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That was partly me: I gathered that some people were probably basing their choices on the incomplete and shoddy state of the Wikipedia article, and not reading reliable sources, so I took action to improve and expand the article accordingly. As someone once said (probably at least twice), people would rather argue for days over a single word than write a single paragraph. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that the Lab Leak Hypothesis was itself called a conspiracy theory by mainstream sources for a long time, it seems a bit wrongheaded to call DRASTIC conspiracy theorists for pursuing it while it was so considered. Most sources now agree the original "conspiracy theory" treatment was wrong. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOLD about it. You made lots of improvements and I appreciate that as much as I hope you appreciate mine.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 14:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. So the text under discussion was modified during standing RfC by the user who submitted the RfC [29]. Well, perhaps it was an improvement, I do not mind. But then just withdraw the RfC, please. I agree, it was not very helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes: What was "not very helpful" about this RfC? How would you have done it differently? Thanks--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Obviously, I would provide a default/neutral version that simply does not define this group at all or defines them in a way that is indisputable. For example, "this is a group of people", or better "this is a group of activists" (they are indisputably activists). My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your constructive feedback, it is much appreciated and will be very helpful when/if we can begin to agree on how to refer to these folks in a way that isn't "conspiracy theorists" in wiki-voice. However, I would also tell you to please

  WP:PAG. I am not a robot.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

  ) 19:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, English is not my native language, but I think OrgangeMike nailed it above, i.e. "amateur researchers" is a euphemism used almost exclusively by conspiracy theorists, usually with no expertise whatsoever. Activism is something very different. I suspect we are all activists here. Promoting knowledge is activism. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  It was also edited by many others before me? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is entirely proper to edit the text while the RfC is ongoing, as soon as a consensus sort of emerges. That's what I did. If some uninvolved person wants to come along and close, that would also be fine with me. But to be clear, withdrawing would be the wrong thing to indicate what has happened because the status quo is not what won the consensus of commenting editors.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't love the word amateur. Without knowing who exactly they are how do we know they are amateurs? Michael-Moates (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, some of them are not anonymous (this page seem to misinform a new reader). Some of them like Yuri Deigin do appear as co-authors in publications [30] and postings [31] and seem to understand well this subject from the biological and other perspectives. Yes, he may be an "amateur" as a "detective", but hardly as a biologist. Besides, consider investigators of Bellingcat. Are they "amateurs"? If so, they are better than "professionals".My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yuri Deigin's degrees appear to be in computer science, mathematics, and business. I do think it is reasonable to call him and some other DRASTIC members amateurs. A Newsweek article calls them this too, although I see that source was recently removed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae: - Here is the deal some of them may be amateurs but you can't say that all of them are because you don't know all of them... the article says many of them are using pseudonyms. Also, to put it in the lede without saying that it only applies to some would not be factual. Michael-Moates (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  I agree. You'll notice I said some. I just now voted for Option H, which mentions both scientists and amateur researchers. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  @

  Competence is required, but competence comes in many forms, and where a question is not purely of a particular field (as the validity of the lab leak hypothesis is not a pure question of virology, but also of lab safety, policy, epidemiology, even economics and network analysis – FTR, I do not believe any of these fields supports a lab leak hypothesis), limiting it to experts of the subject matter is both over- and under-inclusive. A virologist who has spent her entire career on, say, plant viruses has much less to contribute to this than a mathematician with expertise in the analysis of transmission networks. Ari T. Benchaim (talk

  ) 22:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  "Might be an expert" is not among the criteria we should use. Everybody might be secretly an expert on anything. What matters is verifiability. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I was happy to close/withdraw per above ask, but was asked to reopen. So I did. I posted this at the relevant noticeboard to get someone uninvolved to do it, Wikipedia:Closure_requests. I think at this point we are going WAY beyond the original point of this RFC, which was to answer the very narrow question: Should we call DRASTIC team "conspiracy theorists," and if so, how (wiki-voice vs attribution), and if so, where (first sentence vs rest of article)? I'm sorry if that was unclear to anyone here. I made this RFC in what clearly later became a much more unstable article. We should not keep expanding this RFC to mean a bunch of other things that have since come up. Make new discussions for those questions, please! If not for any other reason, for the sake of my sanity. Thank you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC) More votes from more people, just gonna let it run its course.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Note to closer

I would personally prefer it if you handled the questions of

• "Should we include the term 'conspiracy theorists' in this article?" and "If so, how? In wiki-voice? Not in wiki-voice?"

separately from

• "If not 'conspiracy theorists' in wiki-voice, then what should we call them?"

I think that would be the optimal way for us to build consensus and move forward. Mostly because I perceive a fragile but useful consensus on the former questions, versus a lot of confusion and considerable disagreement about the latter question. Ultimately it's your call, but that is the structure that I see resulting in the best outcome for the stability of this article. Thank you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, was my edit against consensus here? I don't find "internet activists" to be the predominant term in the reliable sources referenced here. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

From my perspective, you have not accurately summarized the consensus from this discussion, which is certainly more likely to be "no consensus" than it is "consensus in favor of Option H." In such an eventuality, we default to what the article said before. But most of all, from reading the responses here, it appears to me as RfC opener that the most popular option via consensus of compromise is actually B or D. And most importantly, you are no longer an uninvolved editor, and as an IP, it would be highly irregular for you to close this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink it looks like it was you that withdraw the RFC as no consensus. Why did you close it as no consensus instead of leaving it open? Which sources say they are "internet activists"? 217.35.76.147 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I withdrew it as no consensus because it was going to hell in a handbasket. More and more options being added, more and more confusion about which options were from where and when. It just wasn't worth it. Several users described the RfC as a "shit show" or "unfair." So I opted to withdraw it and let organic consensus run its course. And withdrawing was by far a better option to see if anyone cared enough to start a new RfC. It appears nobody did.

To be 100% clear, we don't need a source to refer to someone precisely as "internet activists" for it to be a fair encyclopedic summary of the sources' descriptions. Indeed, summary means we are taking the phrasing and concepts used in all our sources, and condensing it to a palatable phrase that is encyclopedic. From the discussion above and below, it is clear that many users felt the most appropriate terminology included some sort of use of "amateur" or "activist" or "investigator/sleuth." From my reading of this, there is no consensus in favor of the term "scientist" being included. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of the group as "internet activists" and I do not think it is based on "accurately summarized" consensus "from this discussion" either. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, I never said there was consensus here from this discussion. You have mischaracterized my position entirely. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You reverted my change to a label that is based on inaccurate summarisation of this discussion, which to me, seems to be your position. You then described my change as "edit warring" and "disruptive" in your page protection request. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually wanted the label to be "conspiracy theorists." The current wording is not my preferred one, but it is one I find acceptable. That's how

consensus via compromise is supposed to work. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 21:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the change claiming "most" scientists and expert believe SARS-COV-2 had a natural /purely natural origin. I've done this twice in the last few weeks, and no rebuttal has yet been posted to justify they change to most, so I hold the status quo of 'many' as the best descriptor. There remains no actual evidence that "most", which we can take to mean a polled majority of 50% or more, hold that belief. The wording "most" is used in one Nature article, but it is unevidenced and unreferenced. Until a reliable source confirms "most", Wikipedia should not exaggerate and make primary claims. The descriptor "many" is more appropriate. Aeonx (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact is such sources already exist, as documented at

scientific mainstream is different from the popular opinion mainstream. As the last page I link explain, this is not a popularity contest. If you think that "most" is inappropriate, you're free to present an actual acceptable source which contradicts this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 04:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I have added the sources template. I agree that the

WP:BESTSOURCES say this is the position of "most" experts/scientists. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 10:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

As noted in my revert edit summary, it was already supported by a cited source at the time: "Most scientists say SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin, and was transmitted from an animal to humans" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3 —PaleoNeonate – 06:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

A user essay is a not a reliable source. I disagree W that the nature article is reliable when it statea "most", it's being cherry picked. There is no evidence or a polled majority in ANY of the sources. How any source claims to speak for a majority without having actually surveyed a significant portion to establish a majority is a falsity. It's wrong, plain and simple. There is no evidence for "most". Aeonx (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a shorthand for the reliable sources in the essay. That's what's being cited, not the essay itself. It's not cherry picking, as the remainder of the Holmes et al source (for example) also supports the conclusion that most scientists think the zoonotic explanation is the most likely. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

You can think it is wrong as much as you want, but without good, high-quality reliable sources which say so, it

WP:V, to begin with; NOR and NPOV next). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 02:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You clearly are not familiar with

WP:FLAT does apply. The references are not reliable for the specific claim that "most" scientists and experts because it is Argumentum ad populum, it's a logical falacy, and it has no encyclopedic value. Aeonx (talk

) 03:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I have provided sources which say exactly what is in the article; I have provided sources of scientists saying why that this is indeed the most likely hypothesis; I have even explained to you how things usually go on Wikipedia. The best I can give you at this time of day and after all the obvious signs of

WP:IDHT would be undignified contempt, so I'll spare you that, but I strongly suggest that you stop substituting your opinion for that of reliable sources. And you still haven't presented a single reliable source which makes the point you make, so you also have failed to substantiate your position. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 03:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Many" is the second example named in

MOS:WEASEL. Congratulations for hitting the bullseye of how not to do it. RandomCanadian is exactly right with everything. Although "consensus" would be better wording than "most" - "most" could be 51%, while "consensus" means something like "everyone except a few outsiders who do not have a leg to stand on". --Hob Gadling (talk

) 07:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Whoops. Shibbolethink is also right, of course. :) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• a vote for Many. Randomcanadian and shibbolethink won't stop until these covid pages read exactly as they desire. 2600:1700:8660:E180:FDA6:EC45:77B0:7390 (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  Please read

  WP:ANI, with evidence. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

  ) 08:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Many is more neutral. There hasn't been a proper conference of scientists on this topic to be able to establish consensus. Supposedly the WHO is forming a new committee to investigate the origins of the virus, which will hopefully be more credible than their last one. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Uh since when has scientific consensus required a literal vote among scientists? As if there's any universe where DRASTIC members would be allowed to vote on this topic anyway! This whole discussion is pointless since it rests on the bizarre assertion that MEDRS descriptions of current understanding are less reliable than a random editor's opinion on those sources. JoelleJay (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clearly stating your bias on this issue. You may join the others that need to recuse themselves from editing here. 2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506 (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that so many anonymous editors wish to call out anyone who represents the current consensus position of editors here to recuse themselves... I will remind you that not only is this an inappropriate baseless claim, it is in an inappropriate location. Claims about COI and conduct of other edits are inappropriate on article talk pages, and should only be placed on user talk pages or

WP:COIN. (with evidence) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 21:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)