Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

"Central to many is a misplaced suspicion about the proximity of the outbreak to a virology institute that studies coronaviruses, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)"

The adjective "misplaced" sounds like editorializing. The suspicion is only misplaced, if you have already decided the lab leak theory is wrong. Even if "most scientists" think that Covid arose by zoonosis - itself a dubious claim - there is still a possibility that they are wrong in which case the suspicion might be totally justified. The whole tenor of Wikipedia's article gives the impression that the lab leak theory is complete bunk but there are worthy scientific publications saying the matter is far from closed and both theories need to be investigated e.g. Gain-of-function and origin of Covid19 and An updated review of the scientific literature on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Brown (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

New stuff goes to the bottom. I moved your contribution accordingly.

The point of the "misplaced" is that the logic is invalid (actually, it is pretty stupid), not that the conclusion is false.

And zoonosis is only "dubious" if you have already decided the lab leak theory is correct. We follow the science, and the science says that zoonosis is default and there is no good evidence to reject it. All those loud people who say otherwise have nothing, except being loud. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for moving to the correct place however regarding your comment that the logic is invalid or stupid, how so? If the lab leak is a reasonable hypothesis then the word "misplaced" is prejudging the issue. When you say "we follow the science," you are ignoring the fact that there is considerable disagreement on what the science says as I exemplified by the two scientific references I offered. Saying that zoonosis is the default does not mean that it is the only reasonable hypothesis - it just means it is the one with the highest probability in the absence of other evidence. When you say "All those loud people who say otherwise have nothing" again you are ignoring published papers on this that say otherwise. Julian Brown (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The proximity of the outbreak to a virology institute is a stupid reason because scientific institutes will obviously tend to study things that happen in the vicinity. Research institutes in the Antarctic study things that happen in the Antarctic. Do you even know how many institutes that study coronaviruses were founded in cities in East Asia were after the SARS outbreak? Without that, you cannot know how unlikely it was that the next outbreak of a coronavirus would happen somewhere without such an institute in the vicinity.

I will not discuss whether the leakies have a reasonable position since this is not a forum. We follow the sources, and the best sources say a lab leak is unlikely because there is no good evidence for it. If you have equally good sources that say the opposite, bring them and point to the specific quotes in the sources that do so. I could not find such a quote in the sources you gave after a few minutes, and it is your job as the claimant to point to the quotes you already know and not mine to search the whole articles for what you might mean. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The proximity of the outbreak to a virology institute is a stupid reason because scientific institutes will obviously tend to study things that happen in the vicinity ← this is indeed an observation made by a few RS, and we include it (necessarily, because of WP:FRINGESUBJECTS). Bon courage (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense as you say scientific institutes will obviously "tend to study things that happen in the vicinity." The Wuhan Institute of Virology was not studying things that happen in the vicinity of Wuhan but studying bat viruses they were collecting from over a thousand miles away. The fact that Covid appeared to originate in Wuhan was a surprise. Your argument would be like saying they were studying coronaviruses because that's where Covid emerged - this would be to turn causality on its head. Furthermore, proponents of zoonosis have tried to blame the origin of Covid on one wet market in Wuhan even though in 2019 there were reported to be nearly 40,000 wet markets in China. So out of the 40,000 places Covid could have emerged it just happened to pick Wuhan where there is an institute of virology that had been doing gain of function research on coronaviruses. To me this make the proximity issue, while not conclusive, very far from stupid. Julian Brown (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

From Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market: Of the initial 41 people hospitalized with pneumonia who were officially identified as having laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by 2 January 2020, two-thirds were exposed to the market. Your claim that proponents of zoonosis have tried to blame the origin of Covid on one wet market in Wuhan even though in 2019 there were reported to be nearly 40,000 wet markets in China is disingenious. This does not help the article, which is the purpose of this page. Stop using this page as a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

What is disingenuous about stating a fact? You are doing precisely what I was complaining about in your previous sentence by talking about two-thirds of those early cases being exposed to one wet market. You are trying to blame that one wet market. Regarding your comment that I am using this page as a forum, I think I am using it correctly to point out where the language of the article is not following the rules of Wikipedia by objecting to use of the word "misplaced", which is a clear case of editorializing. Accusing me of being stupid or "disingenious" (sic) does not clarify or help. Julian Brown (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not "a fact", it is two facts connected with the words "even though". So, your statement suggests, disingenuously, that the second fact is a reason for scientists not to suspect the wet market.

By the same reasoning, the police would not be allowed to suspect one specific person of a crime because there are billions of other people in the world. But that one person was seen at the crime scene and was later seen selling the swag, and the other billions of people were not.

There is evidence that it started at that specific wet market. (I gave you that evidence above. Those two thirds of early cases were at that one wet market, not at other wet markets. You did not acknowledge the evidence, you complained about it and waved it away.) I do not know what is so difficult about that.

The zoonotic origin is consensus within science. But the media ignore that and push the lab leak. As a consequence, heaps of lab-leak fans come here and demand that we replace the scientific consensus by their opinion, which they copied-and-pasted from the media. Wikipedia does not work that way. Leave the reasoning to the scientists: they have learned how to do it, and when they publish it, other scientists check if there are mistakes in it. The result is the reliable sources Wikipedia is based on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The point is that if there were only a few wet markets in China rather than 40,000, the fact that Covid emerged in Wuhan - the one city where there was known to be a lab doing gain of function research on coronaviruses - this would not look like such a coincidence. Your crime analogy is hopelessly flawed because in looking at the "swag" they found in the Wuhan wet market - i.e. swabs of DNA collected from animal cages - there was no evidence that animals at the market were directly infected with COVID-19 and transmitted it to humans. So the swag in question is not at all convincing in assigning a culprit and does not help your case. Furthermore, we have nothing equivalent to a "culprit seen at the crime scene" - the nearest thing to this would be a bat or other animal coronavirus that is very close in genetic identity to human SARS-CoV-2. Despite three years of looking nothing has been found that would fit the bill.

As I have said before, the co-location of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the emergence of COVID is not at all conclusive. But by accusing me of being disingenuous, you are saying that I am not being candid and honest. What is your basis for making that accusation? I think you lost the argument as soon as you said that just as you lose the argument by saying "Leave the reasoning to the scientists: they have learned how to do it ..." I already provided sources that show some scientists think the evidence for the zoonotic origin is very far from sufficient. The World Health Organization themselves said all hypotheses concerning the origin of Covid are still on the table. You sound like you are not open to considering anything other than the zoonotic hypothesis. As such I don't know why your view should prevail on a Wikipedia article that should reflect a more balanced viewpoint. Julian Brown (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The point of the crime analogy was that your wording even though assumes that someone said, "let's just blame this wet market for no reason", although there was a reason to blame the wet market. It does not matter whether you think it is a good reason (your main point in the last posting), you should not pretend it does not exist. That is the disingenuous part.

Enough of that. Most of your reasoning is WP:OR, so I will ignore it now. I already provided sources that show some scientists think is the only part that is actually relevant on this Talk page. Some scientists think is not interesting. Scientists' opinions are not a basis for science. They are a source of error that is regularly filtered out by scientific methods like double-blinding. Consensus is not an average of opinions, it is a consequence of the evidence. We do not determine what to conclude from the evidence here, as you are trying to do. We let reliable sources do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Towards the end of the first source I cited "Gain-of-function and origin of Covid19", the author summarizes arguments in favor of a lab leak, although he is careful not to decide the issue one way or the other. He includes the proximity issue as his second point: "First, there is the absence of identified intermediate hosts after three years of pandemics. Second, why Wuhan? This megapolis where the first cases of Covid-19 were detected is remote from the areas of bat reservoirs. In the early phase of the pandemic, the absence of secondary outbreaks that would have accompanied the trade of living animals is surprising. During the emergence of other recent viral respiratory diseases transmitted by animals on markets, as SARS and H7N9 avian influenza, multiple scattered clusters were observed [32], [33], [34]. In Wuhan and elsewhere, researchers have practiced GoF on sarbecoviruses. According to publications, chimeric viruses were created in 2015, followed by 8 more viruses in 2017, two of which were pathogenic to humanized mice. All indications are that the origin of SARS-CoV2 in December 2019 was very recent, a hypothesis corroborated by epidemiological models. We also observe very low genetic diversity of initial isolates, contrasting with the high diversity that viruses can deploy in a few weeks. Moreover, the SARS-CoV2 was immediately highly contagious, witnessing a remarkable adaptation of this bat virus to humans ..." Julian Brown (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We should really shorten

"Central to many is a misplaced suspicion about the proximity of the outbreak to a virology institute that studies coronaviruses, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)."

to

"Central to many is the proximity of the outbreak to a virology institute that studies coronaviruses, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)."

As in the paragraph before we already label them "conspiracy theories". The extra text is redundant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. Text needs change. Also, sources have bias and should not be in the lead. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"informed by racist undercurrents" redux

This was discussed previously a couple months ago, and I don't recall it reaching any firm conclusion. I am reminded of it by some comments I saw elsewhere on the web, where people talking about this article called out this sentence specifically as confusing and meaningless.

The phrase "informed by racist undercurrents", as currently used in the article, is ambiguous, poorly defined, editorializing, and it's not supported by the sources. What it used to say was this:

• The lab leak theory has been described as racist and xenophobic, because it has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment.

Here is what it says now:

• The lab leak theory is informed by racist undercurrents, and has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment.

I say now, as I said then, that this does not make sense. Since the terms are extremely vague, it's hard to know precisely what this sentence is saying. "Informed by" means that something is dependent on, or caused by; an "undercurrent" means a foundation or basis. Does this mean that the theory is fundamentally caused by racism? I don't know -- it's ambiguous flowery language. As I said in the previous section: were the landing parties at Normandy "informed by undercurrents of Nazism"? Maybe they were -- if there were no Nazis, they wouldn't have been landing at Normandy -- but if a phrase can be used to mean two things that are diametrically opposed to one another, then it isn't encyclopedic, and we should say something more clear. The only reason not to would be if a large number of sources used that phrase, and it were in some way meaningful in and of itself (i.e. "clear and present danger", "stop, drop and roll", "null and void").

This is not the case here. None of the sources mention anything being "informed by" anything, or the presence of "undercurrents". Moreover, the ambiguity of the phrase lends itself to an interpretation ("the lab leak theory is caused by racism") that isn't supported by any of the sources. Accordingly, I am going to restore this to what it used to say, which does not present the issue of implying original research. jp×g🗯️ 06:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage: jp×g🗯️ 07:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The trouble with your edit is it's just wrong (per the sources). The racist aspect isn't (just) because it causes xenophobia and racism; those things feed LL. As we explain, some politicians leveraged racism to spread the idea ('kung flu' anyone?) From PMID:36355862 "Lab leak theories are often bolstered by racist tropes ..." And there is further discussion about this racism aspect in the body. I don't think the language is 'flowery'; it's just that these concepts need careful, nuanced description, and that's how the WP:BESTSOURCES handle it. Wikipedia should follow. Perhaps 'shaped by racist undercurrents' would be better and more coherent? 07:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Bon courage (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this warrants inclusion. I am sure these people know a lot of stuff about epidemiology. "Whether some people online are racist" is not epidemiology. "The specific percentage of people online who said this thing was true and who were also racist" is definitely not epidemiology. In this article you're citing, the full quotation is this:

Lab leak theories are often bolstered by racist tropes that suggest that epidemiological, genetic, or other scientific data have been purposefully withheld or altered to obscure the origin of the virus(9).

What does that citation go to? It's Cho J., (2021) Lab-Leak, gain-of-function and the media myths swirling around the Wuhan Institute of Virology. https://www.mintpressnews.com/lab-leak-gain-function-media-myths-swirling-around-wuhan-institute/278555/. Accessed 11 August 2022. This is not some kind of scientifically researched conclusion: it's an article on a news site, and on said site it's tagged "opinion and analysis" -- it's literally an opinion piece. It's not a claim of objective determination of fact. It may be false and it may be true, but it is not verifiable, and we should not have it written in the voice of the encyclopedia -- and we definitely should not make up a completely different statement that kinda-sorta sounds like it and then say that in the voice of the encyclopedia. jp×g🗯️ 07:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not Wikipedia editors' job to reject peer-reviewed journal articles because they query underlying sources. Garry will have been completely immersed in the whole debate, and the eistence of gain-of-function / media myths is so banal as to be a commonplace. Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia editors' job to find a bunch of papers that say "Napoleon was short" and combine them together to say "Napoleon had dwarfism"; that is not how addition works. The actual, objective claim that can be supported here is that some people who were racist supported the lab leak theory. The claim that all of them were "informed by undercurrents" cannot. jp×g🗯️ 07:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The straw men are on fire. But, we don't say "all of them". Bon courage (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

MintPress News was deprecated as a source for facts in 2019, so that doesn't inspire confidence. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I started the last discussion on this. My opinion hasn't changed, and I agree with JPxG. "Inform" and "undercurrent" are unclear and lacking in precision. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be improved, but we need to capture the sense of the sources. Edit warring something that does not reflect the sources (as the OP is doing) is not a good idea. The question would be how to summarise stuff like:

• bolstered by racist tropes (cited source)
• Motivated reasoning based on blaming an 'other' is a powerful force against scientific evidence (cited source)
• The American president of the time, Donald Trump, used anti-Chinese rhetoric (such as "Kung flu") to feed the idea (our article body)

... perhaps we could just say the theory relies on racist motivated reasoning more than scientific evidence? Bon courage (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We should not "just say" things that aren't supported by reliable sources. We should not take things from op-eds and restate them as objective fact. I understand that Donald Trump is a dick. I understand that some people who made this claim were racist, and indeed, that some people who made this claim undoubtedly did so merely as a means of being racist. This is completely fine to mention. However, the bulletpoints you give here do not logically connect to each other, and by doing so you are performing WP:SYNTH. It simply does not follow from any set of reasonable premises that the claim "COVID came from a laboratory" is inherently racist. Stupid, yes. Wrong, yes. But not "informed by undercurrents"; this is just a weird guilt-by-association attack on something which is dumb enough that we ought to be able to just say why it's dumb and be done with it. jp×g🗯️ 07:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The racism aspects of LL are a major theme in the literature (in fact, the article body should have more on this). The task is how to cover them. I don't think any source says LL is "inherently" racist, and neither do we (and of course LL is not just one thing). However, the sources do say that racism feeds LL. How do we summarize that? Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I dislike "In many Western countries, belief in the lab leak theory is correlated with distrust of government and anti-China sentiment, and has kindled the latter" and would prefer to go back to The lab leak theory has been described as racist and xenophobic, because it has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment., which is clear and precise. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The trouble with that is the "because". It's not "because" of it giving rise, rather there is blatant racism behind LL (too). That is what we describe in the article body anyway. Bon courage (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this; it also avoids the headache of trying to source sweeping objective claims about correlation and population statistics, and provides useful attribution for the claim (i.e. an in-text hint of "well, here is who said that"). jp×g🗯️ 08:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I offered that as an example to make a point about writing style, not an actual proposal; we don't use sources that support "correlated with distrust of government", for example. DFlhb (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd be very happy with this proposal. DFlhb (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternative: The lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have increased anti-Chinese racism. - the weaponization seems prominent in the various sources we currently cite for that sentence, and I think they're strong enough to use wikivoice. Arguments that racism fed the lab leak theory are better left to the body, methinks. DFlhb (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

But again that makes it sound like the racism is just an OUTPUT from LL, where our sources are emphasizing that it's an INPUT to it. Bon courage (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's true, but mentioned by a minority of sources we currently cite, and requires sufficient contextualisation/explanation that it's IMO best left to the body. But my proposal swaps attribution for wikivoice for an uncontested fact, and points to the primary actors (politicians, i.e. Trump/Bolsanaro/etc), which reflects the same emphasis present in our citations. DFlhb (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I see. If you swapped "have increased" to "have both leveraged and increased" that'd capture it and I could get behind that! Bon courage (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's fine too; good wording - DFlhb (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree with jpxg and Novem, and I'll go further, the sentence is bad enough that it unfairly discredits the rest of the article. jpxg's checking of Garry's citation tells me we need to find another source. Garry is free to cite a semi-fake news site, but his one-sentence comment isn't enough; we need full-length reliable sources that examine this issue in detail, that we can properly summarise.

Further, we say it in an unintellectual (IMO anti-intellectual), unencyclopedic way. A more professional way to write would be: "In many Western countries, belief in the lab leak theory is correlated with distrust of government and anti-China sentiment, and has kindled the latter". Something along those lines. Any newspaper editor would have an issue if they saw our sentence; and our standards are supposed to be even higher. DFlhb (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Something like that would be fine too (I've put a slightly trimmed version of it in the lede, let's see if it sticks). But we mustn't say LL is merely called racist because it gives rise to racism, and that make it seem like a legitimate idea with an unfortunate consequence. And that's not what the sources say. Bon courage (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The point of this article is to document the lab leak theory in an encyclopedic manner. The point is not to simply say as many bad things about it as humanly possible. This is not only counter to the purpose of Wikipedia, but prima facie absurd: do you really think that people are going to be more convinced by an article that spends 200,000 bytes and 236 references refuting them with citations to actual scientific publications, or by an article that spends its lead making unsupported, vague insinuations that they smell bad, are racist, don't even lift, etc? jp×g🗯️ 08:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The point of the article is to mirror the WP:BESTSOURCES. Those treating this topic in depth describe how racism plays a role. We shouldn't care if that "convinces" any LL fans (it won't) but if it reflects insight into the topic from experts then that's cool. Bon courage (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my basic point here. You've said that racism "feeds", "plays a role", "are a major theme", was "leveraged to spread", is "relied on", "feeds", is "behind", or was a "link in the chain". What I'm saying is that these are vague handwaves; they're unfalsifiable, and they don't demonstrate an actual causal relationship between the things. You insist that the article should claim a causal relationship. What is it? jp×g🗯️ 08:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't twist things and put words in my mouth. When the article tried to use subtle wording which was not strictly causal "informed by undercurrents" editors (you most loudly) didn't like it. This is in the realm of social anthropology not hard cause-and-effect science, so one would not expect falsifiability. We need to reflect the knowledge in this realm from the experts. Bon courage (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay. jp×g🗯️ 09:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You say above that you don't think any source says LL is "inherently" racist, yet that's the essential meaning of what you prepended to my suggestion, and I oppose it. The only source presented so far isn't good enough — it's hard to move forward before we find more. DFlhb (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's another discussion, but we mention in the article body "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government" citing Gorski. Bon courage (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Fine, Gorsky is good. DFlhb (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I am somewhat concerned about the way that you want to use the Gorski source. This is an opinion piece -- which is fine, we have WP:RSOPINION for a reason -- but there is a difference between an opinion and a factual claim.

The full quote is this: That’s evolutionary biologist Heather Heying on the podcast that she does with her husband, biologist Bret Weinstein, claiming that it’s a conspiracy to “definitely” show that it was “those people” who caused the pandemic, not a lab leak. In a massive exercise in projection, she calls claims that the pandemic started at the Huanan market “racist,” apparently ignoring the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government. This is opinion writing. It's clear that his opinion is that there is "blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak". This is not an objective claim being made about reality; it's an opinion. Do you understand the difference?

Elsewhere in the piece, he says "Also, in that interview from last year Jon Stewart disappointed me in the extreme by sounding very much like the sort of conspiracy theorists that he used to mock on The Daily Show." Is it acceptable to add "He is 'disappointing in the extreme'.³" to Jon Stewart? I would advise you to read WP:RSOPINION. jp×g🗯️ 08:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, WP:SBM is a WP:GREL. But even so we say LL "has been described as" rather than asserting it as fact, and the comments are attributed in the body. Bon courage (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I am arguing in favor of including that language. Does the entry say that all opinions expressed in op-eds on SBM are factually correct? jp×g🗯️ 08:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Straw man argument. They're not really op-eds; that's trying to force a news mindset onto scicomms writing. Bon courage (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Is "Jon Stewart disappointed me in the extreme" a scientific fact or an opinion? jp×g🗯️ 09:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would you think it has anything to do with science? If Jon Stewart disappointed you it would be a fact you were disappointed. Bon courage (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

They are clearly op-eds... They're opinion pieces written by the editor/owner/founder of the publication. That editor is a SME so their opinions can absolutely be included, but with attribution of course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The exact wording is not so critical compared to appropriate weight, which is minimal. The placement and quantity of text should not give the impression that racism is a significant part of the origin, content, or evidence for the lab leak hypothesis. To do so would be WP:PROFRINGE. Sennalen (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in saying that LL is informed by racism, pointing to the very genesis of LL. There's a not insignificant amount of academic sources cited from this article that attest to that fact. "Kung Foo Flu" anyone? CHYNA? Do I even need to say his name? Our job as editors is not to quote the words of others verbatim, that would obviously be copyvio and so we paraphrase. TarnishedPath^talk 08:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Excerpting five to ten words with quotation marks and in-text attribution would never, under any circumstances, be considered copyright violation. As for the other stuff in your comment, I am confused -- the lab leak theory is not true, but thousands of scientific studies have confirmed that the pandemic started in China. I am unaware of any claim whatsoever to the contrary (except urban legends about it being caused by cell phones, etc). jp×g🗯️ 08:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Trump's contribution was just one link in the chain as we (hopefully) make clear in the discussion of LL origins in the article. The origin of LL was Infowars and 4Chan. Bon courage (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The origin of the lab leak hypothesis is the fact that WIV began modifying novel bat coronaviruses to use human ACE2 receptors in 2017. The dangers were long recognized in the scientific community. https://archive.is/IuLcX Sennalen (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This an example of the kind of problem we get here. Wikipedia follows sources not what editors fancy. Bon courage (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10234839/ Sennalen (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether the length is too short to worry about copyvio, I as an editor still regularly paraphrase. I don't think that would be uncommon. TarnishedPath^talk 09:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

A this stage a red through off wp:v might be useful, to be used as a source disputing the claim that the lab leak story was either informed by or led to racism, a source must discuss that issue, not just the veracity of the lab lek story. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

break

I think we should try a straw poll and not get lost into the weeds too much. 3 proposals on the table so far:

• Option 1: The lab leak theory has been described as racist and xenophobic, because it has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment (Novem)
• Option 2: The lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have increased anti-Chinese racism. (me)
• Option 3: The lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism (Bon courage)

I'm fine with 2 or 3, prefer 3. DFlhb (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC) edited 19:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think the first one is the best of these, although I guess the second one is fine if that ends up being a tiebreaker. jp×g🗯️ 09:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, I am not really sure that the second one is backed up by the sources we have. I think if we can't do any better than the status quo we should just go back to that. To be honest, in the larger scheme of things I'm not fully confident that this needs to be mentioned in the lead in the first place; it's not really a standard practice for us to open articles about (scientific, discredited, formerly scientific, etc) ideas/theories/notions with sociodemographic disclaimers about the type of people who at one point believed them. jp×g🗯️ 10:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What is your source for "it has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment"? Bon courage (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think if we can't do any better than the status quo we should just go back to that. To be honest, in the larger scheme of things I'm not fully confident that this needs to be mentioned in the lead in the first place; it's not really a standard practice for us to open articles about (scientific, discredited, formerly scientific, etc) ideas/theories/notions with sociodemographic disclaimers about the type of people who at one point believed them. jp×g🗯️ 06:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Has to be 3 if we're trying to summarize the body in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'd say 3 but I'd agree to 2 as a tiebreaker.TarnishedPath^talk 09:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Words such as "leveraged", "informed by", "undercurrents", "is correlated", and "kindled" are too vague and imprecise, and I would urge picking a version that does not use them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• 3, because both things are supported by sources and need to be included: racism increased the appeal of the lab leak theory, making it easier to ignore scientific consensus, and the lab leak theory's wide dissemination also contributed to increased racism. NightHeron (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• 2 or 3. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Option 3 reflects the sources that show two-way influence. It's the most inline with NPOV. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• 1, second choice 2. It's nice a factual, no imprecise language High Tinker (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• 1, I think; the others somehow sound passive-aggressive. --Andreas JN466 21:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Happy with 2 or 3, or a version of 1 that ends with "because of anti-Chinese sentiment associated with many proponents and arguments in favor" or similar. We should not say that the effects of the theory are the only reason it is considered racist or xenophobic. It's more than just that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• No change, i guess that would be option #1? Hate discussions, polls and RfC's which jump right to the wording of the lede yet ignore the content in the body. Fix the content in the body first then make an argument for change which reflect your summary of sources. fiveby(zero) 14:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Quite, and one of the problems is that we no longer have any usable source that says LL "resulted in" racism, so option (1) would (now) be completely unverified. Bon courage (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  So, 3 with a citation to Gorski as a good stand-in until and unless the content in the body can be fixed. I like Neil and Lewandowsky here and that source i think really calls for a whole section on "conspiratorial cognition" and motivations to believe and promote what lacks evidence. Don't think that burden should all be on you though if we are really looking to improve the article. fiveby(zero) 16:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  The article is a structural disaster. Agree we really need to consolidate the material on "conspiratorial cognition" and motivations since that is a major academic focus. In general, leaning more on academic sources and less on news pieces is a path to a better article too. Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• 3. Anti-Chinese racism existed before this, and anti-Chinese racism increased after this. If anyone's concerned about calling it racism (e.g., because some of the anti-Chinese views were about distrusting the government itself, and an organization, not being a human, does not really have a race), then we could say (and link to) Anti-Chinese sentiment, since that's the title of an obviously relevant Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  I've been reading-up on this, and there in fact plenty of sources on how LL gave rise to (and was even deliberately use to stoke) anti-Chinese racism, including some fascinating stuff on the enduring Fu Manchu trope. When the article is expanded with these sources, this knowledge can duly be summarized in the lede. But I'm still reading ... ! The bottom line is that racism is quite a big aspect of LL, in quality RS. Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think that if we want to write an article about "lab leakers" as a social group, we should just do that, rather than having an article which represents itself as being about a set of factual claims, and then continually interrupts itself to go on long asides about the prejudicial beliefs of a group of people on the Internet. To draw a somewhat blunt comparison: say that an athlete (let's call him Ronald) loses a race. Why? Well, it's simple: he didn't run as fast as the other guy. That is the only actual factor involved in determining who wins a race. Let's say that Ronald supporters come up with some theory about how the cameras they used for the photo finish were misaligned. Well, here's the disproof: "we went and measured them and they weren't". If you're writing about who won the race, this is the most important thing to mention. Note that "his fans are jerks to the Swiss" does not demonstrate that he lost. It might be true, and it might be relevant to a sociological analysis of the theory as a social phenomenon, but it gives you basically zero information about the theory itself, or who won the race, or how we know this. It would be possible for his fans to be jerks and also right. If we write an article called "Ronald victory theory", and our explanation of why he lost the race is that "the pro-Ronald theory was informed by anti-Swiss undercurrents", it's worse than irrelevant, it devalues the rest of the information on the page; one gets the impression that the main goal of the article is to wiggle its tongue at the Ronald supporters rather than inform its readers.

  To clarify, lest someone respond that the article shouldn't completely omit all mention of this: I do not think it should, and nowhere have I said it should. My only claim is that it should not say "informed by racist undercurrents", and it should also not say any kind of weird ambiguous flowery insinuation ("undergirded by racist overtones", "reminiscent of racist reifications", "instantiated hitherto alongforeunderwith racializationisms", or the like). If it is mentioned at all in the lede (which I'm not completely certain of, since most of the sources claimed to support the language in the lead didn't) it should just straightforwardly say something like "It has been described as xenophobic". But as has been mentioned before, most of the references for the "undercurrents" line did not actually support that claim, so it would have to be cited to something. jp×g🗯️ 04:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think it depends on what you believe the scope of the article is. If you think the scope is narrow ("Was this virus physically present in this building towards the end of 2019, and did it leak out?"), then all the stuff about human reactions is irrelevant. If you think the scope is broader ("The internet blew up with this idea"), then all the stuff about human reactions is important. The lab leak story "out-competed" many other stories. Hundreds of reliable sources addressed the lab leak story; almost none addressed stories about COVID-19 being a divine punishment, or being an attempt by rival countries to poison China, or being an accidental contamination from alien creatures visiting Earth.

  If you're trying to write about the broader scope, then you have to look for reliable sources that ask why people were so fascinated with this story. The sources say that one important reason behind the fascination is anti-Chinese racism. Therefore, this fact should be included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. I think it is a good idea if the article focuses on academic sources discussing things which actually exist in the real world in relation to the lab leak (racism), rather than apparently imaginary things which no good source countenances (e.g. secret weapons research in a certain laboratory in China). Bon courage (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sentence in lead, no reference, should remove. Mostly Chinese government calls theory racist, xenophobic. But most reliable sources say theory is credible. WHO says needs investigation. This is one of many problems in article and lead. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of academic sources that call it a conspiracy theory. I.e., not credible. TarnishedPath^talk 01:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Perng and Dhaliwala

@Bon courage: where in the source do they talk about the lab leak theory? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The theory (as RS says) encompasses a wide spectrum of things, incluing not so much a "leak" as as release, or that there was a weapons programme. Bon courage (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

But Perng and Dhaliwala actually need to be talking about it in the context of the lab leak theory, they don't appear to be doing that. Which RS says that? Note that we don't currently cover either purposeful release or weapons program stuff in this article. Thats all covered on other pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"The lab leak theory is not a single discrete proposed scenario, but a collection of various proposed scenarios on a spectrum with, at one end, a careless accident from legitimate research; at the other, the engineering and release of a Chinese biological weapon" as we say. Bon courage (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're quoting from our article and not from the given source? Wikipedia articles are not RS and I asked for RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because the RS is accurately summarized. This is all kind of obvious. Bon courage (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

So you can show where in the RS it says that about the lab leak theory? You also need to show where Perng and Dhaliwala talk about the COVID-19 lab leak theory, they actually need to talk about it or using them here is questionable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Read the cited source. Bon courage (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You want to include, you need to provide the explicit support. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It is the article scope. Note there is an entire section entitled "Fringe views on genetic engineering". If you want to change the article scope (or tweak the title), feel free to propose something. Bon courage (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

But even then if Perng and Dhaliwala are only talking about a component of the theory how can we universalize their findings in the way we are? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

At this point I don't even know what you are asking. You seem somehow to be arguing that bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 isn't a central idea of the lab leak? Bon courage (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

How can we turn a statement about "the unsubstantiated hypothesis the virus was developed in a laboratory in Wuhan" to a statement about the COVID-19 lab leak theories in general? Those aren't the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You mean it got out without leaking? Bon courage (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean that we have a wide variety of theories, most of them not involving the virus being developed in a lab and not all of those have the lab being in Wuhan. We have many hypotheses, we can't universalize a statement about a single hypothesis to all of them as we did there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying it's only the Wuhan-centric ideas which are racist? That seems plausible but could be accounted for with a single word tweak. Probably better to contribute to the straw-poll discussion above than continue this here. Bon courage (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The source doesn't appear to comment on that. We can't establish a negative like that, it's OR. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the body, it's in flux and being discussed at length above. We know there are racist ideas behind lab leak theories from multiple RS. The question is, how to convey that. Bon courage (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It took a very long time for you to acknowledge that I was entirely correct about the source not directly supporting what it was being used to support... Next time around lets try skipping the stonewalling and getting straight to the content. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Danth's Law strikes again. Bon courage (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the source from the lead as we've established that it doesn't support the given content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Science-based medicine in the lead

And also the WP:SBM source, which is reliable for statements of fact. That is not good. Bon courage (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Its an editorial, we don't use those for unattributed statements of fact. You know that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it is an expert assessment in the realm of science. This is a fundamental misunderstanding you've stumbled on before. Please review the comments above on SBM (from me and other editors) to understand better what policy and community consensus have determined on how to deal with such sources. Bon courage (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What are we disagreeing about? Its an editorial written by a subject matter expert, but its still an opinion piece. Its not in the same league as an actual journal article or even a non-editorial piece in the exact same publication. Why not stick to "The lede [sic] summarizes the body"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

As was said here recently: "Gorski is not an opinion piece, and is WP:GREL. This is clearly supported by WP:RSPSOURCES and the RSN discussions it links". Bon courage (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes... In a discussion which ended in no consensus. Were you misremembering it as closing with a consensus along those lines? Note that GREL says "Arguments that entirely exclude such a source must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (e.g. a well-established news organization would be normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question." I think we can all agree that if we're going to use a single source to make that statement in the lead it would need to be MEDRS. Also note that nobody is trying to exclude the use of the Gorski piece, it just needs to be used in the body with attribution... Yes it gets included in the lead, but as part of a summary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

MEDRS has nothing to do with it, and the claim is not exceptional, but made in many sources and contradicted by none. An article in SBM is not "an opinion piece in a newspaper". Bon courage (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That's true. It's an opinion piece in a self-published blog. Sennalen (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Its not a self-published blog, its got an editorial structure its just that much of that structure is Gorski who is the author here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

If the structure isn't exerting control over the author, then it's effectively self-published. Pieces from his guest authors seem more evidence-based and less polemical than the ones from Gorski himself. Sennalen (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thats why in general we treat opinion/editorial pieces as if they were self-published... But to be perfectly clear they aren't technically self-published we just treat them that way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

If its made in many sources and contradicted by none why are you insisting on attaching this one specific source? SBM is not mainstream, its an organ of the Skeptic movement and while its relevant it expresses a particular opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There is little I can contribute to this conversation, as in the above sections I addressed more or less all of these points in exhaustive detail; I can only say that you are obviously correct in your claims. jp×g🗯️ 05:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"Obviously" not, which is why this approach has not got consensus and the community has decided as it has at RSN/RSP, and as enshrined in NPOV/YESPOV. Meanwhile, there is a straw pole running (above) and multiple comments from multiple editors on this matter. I suggest pursuing that might be a better use of everybody's time than replaying the same issue in (another) lengthy side discussion. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is all this bandwidth being spent arguing about a generally reliable source? WP:RSPSOURCES is very clear about this source being generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Just so we are on the same page, can you say, specifically, what we are talking about? As in, which quotation from which source should be used to cite which specific text in the article? jp×g🗯️ 07:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? Because the RSNP entry is a lie and that is offensive to some. But it is a convenient lie for WP purposes, and there is no real way to have a rational discussion about this source which acknowledges it's limitations and also it's very real utility for WP purposes. The above discussion ended up going to ANI, closed by an involved editor and reverted by a now banned user. RSN is a useless exercise when it comes to evaluating sources.

But looking at the source now for the current article in its current state, i would put quite a few of the sources and the useless citations on the chopping block before removing Gorski. If this were a well-written article which put the reader first and did have higher standards for sourcing, maybe the "racist" content would change slightly and the SBM citation would go, but i don't think there is any real way to get to that state. fiveby(zero) 14:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Gorski wasn't removed from the body, nobody is challenging its very real utility for WP purposes. What is being challenged is using it alone to source the sentence in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I wish people would contribute to the straw poll discussion about the lede above, rather than essentially re-running the same discussion afresh. I'd ideally prefer to get the content about racism correct in the body; then it's 'simply' a matter of summarizing it in the body (with or without citations) right? Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I am hesitant to participate in the straw pole because I think we need something more like a combination of those options than any one of them. Completely agree that we should be working from the body to the lead, not the lead to the body. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Because the RSNP entry is a lie and RSN is a useless exercise when it comes to evaluating sources. Sigh. If you don't trust the RSP/RSN process, then I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like a major timesink to debate well-accepted Wikipedia processes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's not use opinion writings for supporting fact statements. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What opp-edds do we use? Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It removed already. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Article fails neutrality standard

Dear Editors, this article does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality standard. The language is biased. It shows one side more. Also, sources are mostly from one side. There is heavy reliance on discredited Proximal Origins paper. Important points like are missing in the article. Language be changed to be more fair, add more and different sources, put in missing information, and make balance in views. I hope we can work together for making article better. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia does not "both sides" mainstream science and fringe notions. The "Proximal Origins" paper is not "discredited". Bon courage (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Editors not agree theory is fringe. WHO says lab theory needs investigating, repeated many times, and reported each time. The article must completely rewrite to show all reliable sources on subject, not just writings from one side. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

We do not go by what editors think we go by what RS think, do any RS say its not a fringe theory...ohh wait discussed more than once, the answer is no. Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC). Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The lab leak is not a fringe theory otherwise there would not even be an article about it. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles about hundreds of fringe theories, from Hollow earth to Phantom time hypothesis. So that reasoning is wrong. Bon courage (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe but the lab leak certainly is not a fringe theory but rather even a regular occurrence in laboratory accidents. That's why, regarding the covid origins, the FBI has said that it leans more in the lab leak theory than the zoonosis theory. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Other diseases with lab-leak theories: AIDS, swine flu, bird flu, SARS, Ebola, Bovine spongiform encephalopathy... as soon as there is a new disease, people will claim it comes from a lab. The more popular the disease, the more popular the lab-leak theory. It's how people think: they attribute weather to gods, weird lights to aliens, weird noises to ghosts, and diseases to labs. This is all fringe. If you disagree, you need much better sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

WHO calls for keep investigating Covid as possible lab leak. US government FBI and DOE say that lab leak most likely. So, Covid lab leak not fringe theory, but Aids and Swine flu lab leak theories are fringe. WP:GEVAL is an exception to the WP:NPOV rule that does not apply here. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

So, Covid lab leak not fringe theory Non sequitur. US government agencies are also "investigating" UFOs and "alternative medicine", both of which are fringe. Why people believe that something called "department of energy" has any expertise on infectious diseases is beyond me. And "investigate" does not mean "accept as realistic". We have been over all this before. Read the archives. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Why do you assume the opposite? "DOE National Laboratory Capabilities for COVID-19 Response", "DOE Tackling the Challenge of Coronavirus", "DOE Resources Supporting Coronavirus Research", and see Office of Science. The DOE assessment keeps being mentioned on these talk pages, but we really don't have any good idea of what that assessment means or what is behind it. We have to guess at it, they have not published their findings for review, and most indications are that it would not support how most editors try to use it, e.g.: DOE say that lab leak most likely. The FBI assessment probably follows the reasoning of the standard "lab leak" theory framework, but the DOE assessment could be related to CDC and not WIV, and some wording in reports suggest the thinking might have been related to field collection. We don't really have any damn clue what the reasoning of the DOE could be, and the good sources we have to look to for the article say just that, until they make their findings open for evaluation we don't really know what they are talking about. fiveby(zero) 17:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not known to you, but DOE runs 17 national labs, work on nuclear to biological weapons. It's top biodefense agency in US, while HHS more on health, welfare. DOE also has mandate for pandemic preparedness, crucial in Covid response, provided computing power. This why Human Genome Project was mainly HHS and DOE collaboration. WHO statements definitely 'accept as realistic' possibility of Covid leaking from lab, that's why they say to continue investigation. Please post RFC if you insist theory is fringe and can't cover neutrally. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The response above yours is better. If someone or some institution utters an opinion without giving any reasons, why would anyone think they are reliable? Maybe it is just the private opinion of the person who wrote it. If they want to be taken seriously, they should behave accordingly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Fiveby's response above is excellent, but my response, different from theirs, corrects your statement that DOE and WHO not authoritative enough for deciding if lab leak theory is fringe or not. This is key point for moving discussion forward to an RFC to establish if this theory is fringe, and if it can be covered neutrally. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

RS not all say it's fringe theory. Some RS say scientists and institutions call it unlikely, others say likely. WHO, highest authority, says still need investigate. Neutrality means must balance views. This article not meet that standard. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

MAybe, but do we have any that actualy say its not a fringe theory? Saying something need to be looked at could be as simple as saying "its not true, but we want to prove it". Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, many sources. For example, Vox says, 'President Biden asked Department of Energy's national labs to join assessment.' WP:GEVAL says don't give equal validity, make false balance in fringe theories, no clear consensus in archives that this theory is fringe. Most important authority WHO, they keep position that all options are open. That is 'equal validity', for what we call a 'theory'. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven

“We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data,” reads a letter published in the journal Science in May 2021, co-authored by 18 researchers.

The lab leak hypothesis “really is not a fringe theory,” Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiology professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and a co-signer of the letter, told CNN. “It had been viewed as a fringe theory because it was espoused in fringe ways by some people with political agendas.”

Thinker78 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

References

That's not the reason it's considered a fringe theory. Indeed, the folks with political agendas are repeatedly shouting: "China virus" as if it was evil communists that created it, with no evidence. Our definition is:

A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. It can include work done to the appropriate level of scholarship in a field of study but only supported by a minority of practitioners, to more dubious work.

Fringe doesn't necessarily mean insane or without some support among scientists. If you look at the experts in the field of coronaviruses, they agree that lab leaks are possible, but SARS-CoV-2 unlikely and bereft of evidence. There is a lengthy article at[1]. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, Poorly conducted research, research fraud and other types of bad science are not necessarily pseudoscientific – refer to reliable sources to find the appropriate characterisation. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I wrote that part of the guideline. It explains what is not 'pseudoscientific'. It is not really relevant to this article since LL doesn't contain (much) pseudoscience. We do not say LL is pseudoscience. This topic is however covered by WP:FRINGE in many respects. Bon courage (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

How possibility WHO says need investigate become labeled fringe theory on Wikipedia? WHO is top health authority in world, not agree with own joint mission result with China, says need continued investigation. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. The bare assertion ("a lab leak is possible") is not FRINGE. Pretty much everything else (it was made in Fort Detrick! The Chinese had a weapons program! The virus has the fingerprints of human engineering! Fauci conspired to create the virus!) is. These are basics of this topic and it would be a complete waste of time to have to rehearse them again. Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I not complain article doesn't give equal validity to Fort Detrick conspiracy theories. Some editors think covering subject with balance of views not possible due to WP:GEVAL, saying it gives 'equal validity'. I think this need be settled with an RFC. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

GEVAL is part of WP:NPOV and not negotiable. All the views I mentioned are WP:FRINGE (exept the bare proposition that a lab leak is possible). What specific thing do you think is not fringe? Bon courage (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I not talk about those views. I only discuss main theory, which seems you agree not fringe. We should then progress to balance views on subject, remove statements of fact not warranted. NihonEditor (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The word 'fringe' only appears in the article as a section title "Fringe views on genetic engineering". I don't think we should look at the content as labeling some topic as WP:FRINGE. That guideline should apply site-wide, to all articles. When someone says this is a WP:FRINGE topic or a "fringe theory" i think that is really just shorthand for saying editors need to take a really hard look at the sources and understand the purpose of the guideline when building content. An RfC asking whether the "lab leak" is "fringe" or not would be a pretty useless exercise, the guideline should apply no matter what.

I think the best way to look at the issue is described in "Leak or Leap?" under "Samples from a Torrent":

It is therefore entirely possible that a scientifically valid and coherent account of the lab leak hypothesis exists within this enormous sample and that we are unaware of it (although to the best of our knowledge it would not be in the scientific literature). The fact that some members of the US intelligence community assigned plausibility to a lab leak without, however, being highly specific supports this possibility.Bearing in mind that caveat, however, our analysis clearly shows that numerous arguments (we estimate it to be the lion’s share) for the lab leak hypothesis are pseudoscientific and suffused with conspiratorial rhetoric.

How are we supposed to find a scientifically valid and coherent account for the reader if they cannot? Most of the arguments on this talk page picking around the edges of the issue, raising issues of legitimate doubt or challenging specific wording seem really designed to reverse the burden of proof and create a wedge to allow the torrent of arguments, "pseudoscientific and suffused with conspiratorial rhetoric", into the article content. fiveby(zero) 16:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree most discussions just touch small parts of issue, but must also look at big problem of lacking neutrality. Like discussion above, Doc James say remove 'misplaced suspicion' (currently reported as a fact by Wikipedia based on one scientific viewpoint), but no action to take it out. You say discussion is just small parts, but truth is no one can change article, new editors quickly accused of bad faith. I think need RFC to ask if whole theory fringe, as that lets editors balance views right. Many source say WIV proximity to outbreak suspicious, but no use to find them if adding them blocked because theory is 'fringe' and we can't give it 'equal validity'. NihonEditor (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage "It is not really relevant to this article since LL doesn't contain (much) pseudoscience." What is relevant is refer to reliable sources to find the appropriate characterisation. If the guidance directs editors to refer to reliable sources for pseudoscience I don't see why it wouldn't for determination of fringe theory. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying the LL is "poorly conducted research", "research fraud" or "bad science" and not "pseudoscience"? What reliable sources even discuss this? The point of this very specific guidance is that not everything dodgy in science is "pseudoscience". I have no idea how this is relevant to LL. If you want to change WP:FRINGE this is not place. On Wikipedia, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Bon courage (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not getting how you are seeing my reply. What I am saying is that whether the lab leak theory is fringe or not is determined by refering to reliable sources to find the appropriate characterisation. I pointed a source that states that "the lab leak hypothesis “really is not a fringe theory". Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Much of the topic here is subject to WP:FRINGE because it's ideas which depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream view. I agree we should be precise about what kind of thing we're dealing with and use appropriate sources to guide us to which particular mix of conspiracy theory, racist meme, fallacious argument, political expediency, or (indeed) pseudoscience applies to the various things that constitute LL. We have such sources, increasingly so as the scholars get to work. Bon courage (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Much of topic here just that virus might have leaked from lab and it not fringe. This article, about general theory, is not under WP:FRINGE policy, unless you want to make RFC to establish that. No discussion on this page in three years made firm consensus about that. NihonEditor (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Refer to WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss individual concerns, bringing proper reliable sources that back your info. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

There discussions above on individual concerns, like Doc James' edit suggestion. But can't edit article to make changes. Many discussions in archives end with no consensus. So, old content stays, new contributions are denied. Some editors claim consensus on theory being fringe, but no RFC to establish that. Admins should ban all editors and let new ones start, or have final RFC to decide if theory fringe or not. This is the harmonious way. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, so lets see the RFC launched. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

With WP:RFCBEFORE. The last thing this page needs is another inept RfC. Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC is for involving wider community, not just few editors here. It would be good and welcome to post RFC. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

few editors here It is highly unlikely that many would read the massive discussions and resources on this page and in its archives. This subject has been discussed here for three years. Also, this page has 180 page watchers, 45 of whom have visited recent edits. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't need wider community to read archives. Just need to know if this theory is fringe like AIDS lab leak conspiracy theory. If not, we can give equal validity, balance views as in reliable sources. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't need wider community to read archives. Ah, so you don't care if they read through the discussions on the topic? You just want them to !vote without the benefit of three years of discussion? Am I missing something? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You say about past discussions. I just say none make consensus lab leak theory is fringe. Time for RFC on question, so can give equal validity, cover neutrally. It is not ideal, but necessary. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that you don't like the consensus from the last three years of discussions. So you want to a !vote of people who do not have the benefit of those discussions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I say no consensus like this. I agree RFC not best, but necessary if you claim theory is fringe, without any link to prove consensus on this. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If we look at recent scholarship like PMID:37697176 then it seems these conspiracy theories have moved into the realm of 'discredited'. We should probably update the article accordingly:

While the American, Australian, and Chinese claims were all theoretically possible, as mentioned, they have now been discredited as there are no good data to support them, and we have to look elsewhere for the “origins” of the new virus. Luckily, here, the evidence is plentiful. A substantial body of knowledge, supported by a great deal of data, favours the original hypothesis of most informed experts: that the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus occurred, like its predecessors, as a result of the well-documented processes of mutation within animal reservoirs followed by cross-species transmission to humans. (my bold)

Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Komesaroff Dwyer article, like all academic articles on subject, not overrule WHO position. Only WHO has authority to investigate origins, spread of new viruses, and their position clear. All options open. Academic discussion important, but not final. Wikipedia should not treat it as such. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Rubbish. The WHO has no 'authority' to investigate without permission. And their position (that it is "theoretically possible") is aligned with the current view that it is nevertheless discredited. Bon courage (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

WHO has authority to investigate, needs cooperation of member state for data access, as stated in International Health Regulations. WHO's position not just 'theoretically possible', but must continue to investigate (important distinction), as reported in reliable sources. No academic paper can settle matter without data access. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The WHO cancelled their investigation into COVID origins earlier this year. Anybody can investigate origins, but good luck being allowed to poke around in Chinese (or any nation's) bio research institutions. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, reliable source say WHO blocked by China. But academic opinions, letters for one theory don't make it more true. Even if blocked, WHO still top authority on subject. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

We are not interested in The Truth™ but in reflecting reliable sources. The WHO may have stopped, but science/academia continue to evolve a position, and Wikipedia reflects what the WP:BESTSOURCES say. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

WHO did not stop. This was clarified by Nature Magazine. The WHO follows the science and continues to announce its position on the subject even after ending second phase of investigation in cooperation with China. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

"Only WHO has authority to investigate origins". I disagree. There are many health and law enforcement bodies among others with authority to investigate. Maybe not outside their geographic jurisdiction but neither WHO has such authority unless there are some treaties about it. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

UN charter and WHO constitution makes WHO exclusive authority for investing origins, spread novel viruses. 'International Health Regulations' is legal treaty of 196 countries, obligate member to share data with WHO, and provide access. No scientist or institution decide virus origin without WHO involved committee, as no data access. If independent scientists find something, first thing they do is share with WHO. NihonEditor (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

In any event there is a separate article on Origin of COVID-19. This article is about the lab leak "theory". Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I will remind editors this article is not just about one lab leak theory, it is about a lot of them. We need to be told (specifically) what the actual issues are, not have vague assertions (that IT is not fringe). Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Different ways for lab leak, different labs possible, all in theory. Fringe parts of theory, like claims of HIV inserts, covered in separate article on misinformation. 219.59.84.10 (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Either have the RFC/close this or just close this, as it is going nowhere. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

DOE

The DOE has a strange history. They formed from the previous AEC, Atomic Energy Commission, with ERDA in between. Formed not so long after the atomic bombs on Japan, one of the things the AEC did, was to monitor the effects of the bombs. Including genetics, through mutations from radioactivity. That got DOE out ahead when it came to the Human Genome Project. Except that NIH then decided that it really should be their project. The DNA sequence database, GenBank, started at Los Alamos National Laboratory. As part of the beginnings of the Human Genome Project, it was moved to NCBI, part of NIH. It is not so obvious, that the history gives DOE any special abilities regarding the origins of viruses. In any case, that is how they got into biology and genetics in the first place. Hopefully this will be useful in coverage of DOE in the article. Gah4 (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see how it makes much difference. TarnishedPath^talk 11:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It might not, but it might help find some useful WP:RS. Gah4 (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

By all means, see if you can find something useful and contribute it to the article if there is something legit.

Good luck! VoidHalo (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We already have this source[2] which is good for explaining what the DOE do, how to interpret their assessment, and how it has been misrepresented in certain press outlets. Bon courage (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Patent for Covid-19 vaccine in February 2020

A patent for a COVID-19 vaccine was filed in February 2020: https://patents.google.com/patent/CN111333704B/en Check also this page where I added some links and more context: Zhou Yusen LucasFR.pr (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Or we wait for RS to mention this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

How's it even relevant? Bon courage (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No idea, hence the request for RS discussing any links. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I just checked out the wooniverse on this, and the lore there is that the patent apparently shows such knowledge it could only have been prepared by somebody who Knew What It Was in the past. The filer then died, which proves the case. I'm not sure if any rational RS has commented on this, although you can[3] readabout it in WP:THESUN. Bon courage (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Fauci admits Lab Leak not conspiracy in private hearings.

Should probably update after the latest hearings where Fauci himself admitted that the lab leak was not a conspiracy theory. MSM reported on it yesterday.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawmakers-questioned-fauci-about-lab-leak-covid-theory-in-marathon-interview/ar-AA1n5d6R

I doubt anyone is going to update based on this, but figured I’d give wiki a shot to be unbiased for once. 2600:1004:B292:5A8F:D0B2:294:BAB2:FD29 (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

THis seems to be being discussed above.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

According to the BBC reference, currently #34 in the article, Fauci said way back in May, 2021 That possibility certainly exists, and I am totally in favour of a full investigation of whether that could have happened. So, what has changed in 2024, other than a new round of hollering by anti-vaxxers trying to smear Fauci? Cullen328 (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• No, that is Brad Wenstrup's characterization of Fauci's comments, which the source attributes to Wenstrup. Since Wenstrup has no medical credentials, I don't think there's anything to do here; we would need better than a politician's characterization of something to update a medical article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)