Template talk:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus)

ProcrastinatingReader ping -- I agree with, I believe Novem Linguae who said that we should remove the XFDs, discussions, etc. I don't think it's helpful if this is intended to go to all the relevant talk pages. It will end up with less consensus, not more. We should stick to only the things we have pretty inarguable consensus on. Like, for example, how to refer to the WHO report. It's not 100% but it's pretty broad.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep ongoing discussions at least, for the purpose of neutral advertisement of scattered discussions. I can live with the other two being scrapped. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I just saw that you already added the WHO report part. Thanks! Okay, how about if we put them in an inner collapse? Is that acceptable?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with collapsing is that mobile Wikipedia does not support that functionality, just as it doesn't support talk page banners (see

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU for other mobile issues). When I've made such templates in the past on disputed topics (Sushant Singh Rajput, Joe Biden, etc.) I've found this to materially decrease the usefulness of the template. The nature of support on mobile depends on how you do it, in some cases it can disappear the template entirely, in others it just auto-expands. I don't think listing ongoing discussions adds much bulk; there will rarely be more than a couple centralised discussions at a given time, and if the template works it should pay for the size it takes up in the size it saves in other discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess I understand the mobile argument and find it more persuasive than the newcomer argument. Annoying, because I think only 20% of readers are even on mobile at any given time, and that number shrinks to <5% when you consider talk pages. But I suppose we have accommodations for much smaller portions of the world, so I suppose that's the most fair solution.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find the "we should never use show/hide/collapse because mobile editors can't see them" argument very convincing. For example, in the banners section of Talk:Donald Trump, I am counting 6 show/hide buttons. If show/hide/collapse is to be deprecated, I think it would need to go through village pump or a similar community process. I also do not find the "we should always bend over backwards for small groups/special interests" argument very convincing. With that said though, I think the current version of our template (no collapse, trimmed back some of the non FAQ stuff) is good. I think we've arrived at a good compromise. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what hex code color the "light tan" in talk page templates is? I, for the life of me, cannot figure it out. I looked at the WMF style guide, the wikipedia color MOS, etc etc. I even tried to look at the page source of different templates, but most are based on color dependencies I can't run down. I'm really close to just using a Photoshop eyedropper, but that is also bad because it won't reflect the true source, only how my OS displays it...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibbolethink, #F8EABA. I do web design, so I have Instant Eyedropper installed. Great tool. Can grab a color from wherever your mouse cursor is. I don't see why a Photoshop eyedropper wouldn't work. HTML to screenshot to Photoshop eyedropper wouldn't change the underlying colors. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, Definitely helps! Thank you :) I was concerned about the way RGB and CMYK don't always translate to web colors well, but I guess you're right, moving in reverse means that isn't as much of an issue. No loss.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibbolethink, I googled a bit more about this issue. Looks like pretty much everything on a computer is RGB: the pixels on your monitor, the pixels in a screenshot, the pixels in a normal image file, the pixels on websites, and hexadecimal codes (each 2 digits of the hex code = the amount of R G or B). CMYK is only used by printers and printing machines, and except for professional graphics designers and the files they create, an RGB to CMYK conversion happens quietly/automatically/in the background when you send your file to print. RGB contains more colors than CMYK and contains all of the CMYK colors, so is arguably better than CMYK (see here). –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in turning this into a talk page banner? In my opinion, placing it as the first talk page section rather than in the banners section is a bit odd. And is also easy to miss. There is precedent for this, for example, Template:Current COVID-19 Project Consensus used at Talk:COVID-19. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile editors cannot see banners, and in general due to banner blindness many people just skim over talk page banners.

talk) 11:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it would be proper to shorten it to a comment about how MEDRS continues to apply to information considered biomedical in its own right. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added 3 examples, drawn from these three examples given directly in

WP:BMI

:

• "the molecular or cellular basis of a disease" (genome sequences)

• "Attributes of a disease or condition...symptoms" (symptom profile)

• "Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis" (% of Wuhan residents sick with COVID in December 2019)

Let me know if you think that's too BOLD. But I think it's far too vague without any examples at all.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: I don't know about those examples. Eg the % of Wuhan residents who contracted COVID in December 2019 I don't think MEDRS is providing data dumps. On all of our "COVID-19 pandemic in..." pages, eg COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, we are using normal news sources or primary sources for this kind of data. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it literally says exactly that in

WP:BMI. I think in the absence of good MEDRS sources for this stuff, we are using RSes and primary sources. Doesn't make it ideal. I think the PAG text is really clear about this. Incidence and prevalence are BMI! Am I going to go delete all that stuff from those pages? No, definitely not. Where it's uncontroversial or undisputed, I really think it's better not to rock the boat. But saying that something directly referenced as BMI in the PAG shouldn't count as BMI is very counter-intuitive...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

BMI is an information page, god knows how well it reflects consensus, but the purpose of this template is meant to be to document consensus, and that provision is not in line with actual practice, because that statistic has not required a MEDRS in practice on any article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, okay okay okay, I get what you're saying. But I must protest in that it doesn't really help prevent any long drawn out arguments (your intention in making this template) if we just use the most reduced and neutered possible interpretation of that RFC close, because we think it's too broad. Without any examples, without any quotes, without any context, we essentially just say "keep arguing like you were before."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the template is not an FAQ, per se. It's too divided a topic for an FAQ to be of any help at all IMO, because they tend to read patronising, and if 'one side' sees no reason to trust it then it's a useless resource. For any closed discussions it's best to stick to the text in the close, and for any unclosed discussions best to neutrally summarise the discussion as best as possible IMO. Although I get your point that examples are more helpful than dull abstractions, it would be better to choose more accurate examples, because this particular example just makes the entire provision look wrong IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, okay, so we want to remove the quote of the close, because it's too broad. And we want to remove the Wuhan infections example because it's too controversial.

What example would you provide in lieu of that one?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, not sure. @Novem Linguae: ideas? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I think some of the points in the list could do with expansion. e.g. 1, as written, doesn't provide much information on what effect that RfC had. Usually NC means return to status quo, which would mean that the lab leak theory still has to follow

WP:FRINGE as it did before, but I dunno if this is true in practice. I didn't want to decide on these issues unilaterally myself, so I just kept it bland. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For #2: I don't think that RfC changed the status of other types of biomedical information, even if there is overlap. All the second sentence says is that, for example, a hypothetical clinical trial of the Mojiang workers would be MEDRS, even though such a trial relates to 'disease and pandemic origins'. The consensus is simply that disease and pandemic origins are not intrinsically biomedical information.

For #3: There is no RfC, but it's not marked as an RfC on the list. The discussions were had many times, more than just those I was able to find at a skim, and the conclusion was the same each time AFAIK. I suppose you could start a structured RfC to gather the community's latest thoughts on it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2 - I agree. #3 - No, I would not start an RfC or any other discussion because it does not make any sense. Using or not using these sources should not change anything it the actual content on any pages I think. There are many other publications to source very same claims. Personally, I would prefer these rather than purely journalistic sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this template tends to get behind, like as discussions get archived etc. It would be useful to have a plug at the bottom (small) that lets a reader know when it was last updated. I added this based on one I've seen on Talk pages. Seems to work. But if consensus is against this, I will happily remove!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forich, the next RfC must actually occur and overturn the previous one before you can remove the consensus like this.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that consensus #1 is outdated or, at least, not useful. I understand the spirit of being comprehensive and including in the template the results of all RFCs but this one should have been excluded. Maybe it is harmless, but it brings noise to a template designed to bring clarity. Can we at least move it downward so that it is not the #1 consensus? Forich (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensuses are in chronological order, not order of priority or "important-ness" — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(withdrawn until consensus is reached about the necessity of this notice)

Given the above section and events where editors/IPs have where user removed entries from this list (see also page protection), could an uninvolved admin please place an edit notice and consensus restriction on this template? I wrote a draft for you, if it helps: Template:Origins_of_COVID-19_(current_consensus)/EditNotice. Thanks. Redrose64, Johnuniq--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC) (17:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Nobody removed entries from this list, I think, and an IP/non-EC-confirmed has never edited it? The protection was pre-emptive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, Oh you mean before the original protection. That makes sense, I just didn't go hunting for it, I assumed. But you're probably right. I guess the above with Forich is the only event, and it was a misunderstanding. I still think an edit notice would be helpful to prevent such misunderstandings in the future. Also, if there is anywhere a "consensus required" edit notice makes sense, it's a page like this! I believe the edit notice on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Current_consensus was also pre-emptive [1].--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ECP is fine but any further restrictions, especially in the absence of evidenced disruption, is just likely to frustrate legitimate editing IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, I think the bar is pretty low for what counts as "consensus" given the entries on that centralized "Current Consensus" list (some have only 2 or 3 users all agreeing on a thing). The notice can also just direct people to post on this talk page instead.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're heavily convinced that this editnotice will prevent someone from adding something that has consensus, then I will withdraw the request! But I just don't see how this could prevent anyone from doing a legitimate thing. If they're concerned there isn't consensus, there probably isn't!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin." This seems to be a statement of fact that is subject to change. Perhaps it needs to be stated that "to date" the consensus is zoonotic. It has not been proven either way and needs to be carefully stated as not to imply the case is closed. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please establish consensus on the relevant talk pages before bringing it here. Since this page is not watched by as many editors, it is not suitable to do so here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template seems to be used in a variety of pages. Could you please start a discussion where you deem appropriate and link here, thanks. --70.191.102.240 (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the person seeking to alter the template, that is something you should do. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just thought this was the best place to discuss, so stared here. I'm not sure of a better place. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Origins_of_COVID-19_(current_consensus)&hidelinks=1&hideredirs=1 70.191.102.240 (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple reliable sources now saying that there is no scientific consensus. Would it be possible for this page to reflect that view point? Thank you. 2601:602:8200:4A10:7EB4:A53D:CAF:24C4 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources saying there's no scientific consensus are documented here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1156718481 2601:602:8200:4A10:7EB4:A53D:CAF:24C4 (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, all scientific consensus is dated. Newton’s law of gravitation was accepted once upon a time too. Einstein’s theory may well be superseded one day. The whole “consensus as of” thing is implicitly true of any scientific theory. Consensus can change when presented with new evidence. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if everyone thought the earth was the center of the universe, then someone came out and said its not, when would the wiki consensus template change to state there was disagreement? 70.191.102.240 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When evidence is presented to show there is actually disagreement within the scientific community. Until you can provide such evidence (by, for example, linking to papers by reputable scientists in reputable journals which contradict the previous ones), there is no change required. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see: Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat:

If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis". Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which is a Good Thing.

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good quote to cite to explain the shifting consensus? "Martin Wikelski, a director at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior in Germany, whose work tracking bats and other animals was referenced in the grant application without his knowledge, also said it made him more open to the idea that the pandemic may have its roots in a lab. “The information in the proposal certainly changes my thoughts about a possible origin of SARS-CoV-2,” Wikelski told The Intercept. “In fact, a possible transmission chain is now logically consistent — which it was not before I read the proposal.”" https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-grant-darpa/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=theintercept 70.191.102.240 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:RS/AC. You can have a dozen individuals saying something, but they're only reliable for their own opinions. You need a source specifically saying the consensus has changed or is changing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Multiple reliable sources dispute the claim that natural origin is the scientific consensus. There is no scientific consensus on this issue. Could someone please change this template to reflect that? Thank you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1156718481 2601:602:8200:4A10:B75A:C1E8:43E2:92F8 (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new quote: "For the moment there is no consensus as to the origins of the virus." https://m.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/dangerous-gain-of-function-research-has-gotten-out-of-hand-and-needs-to-be-reined-in-17598257.amp.html 2600:1700:8660:E180:9855:3C44:5155:6F21 (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We trust peer-reviewed secondary academic review scientific publications to assess consensus, not any type of news source. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include in wikipedia's statement of a consensus an explanation that the

do you have an RfC saying we should include such a thing? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frutos does dismiss LL based in part on Shi. This is a fact, not an opinion. I see multiple responders in the relevant RfC

The only thing of interest I see here is one person not being happy that consensus is against them (a consensus which there is no point in relitigating). The horse is

dead and buried. Move on. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Doesn't really matter, all we can do here is state the close. We cannot reinterpret the close or the responses in our own way, we must only represent the closing comment consensus. The consensus template does not take a stand on the veracity of the claim, it simply states we "cannot describe it as". This is the most neutrally worded way to restate the close. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are sure making Wikipedia look like a clown show. Carry on. "The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead, because it is