Bon courage (talk | contribs) →"Say" or "Speculate": Reply Tag: Reply |
Infinity Knight (talk | contribs) →"Say" or "Speculate": Reply |
||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
* It is appropriate to follow the guidelines outlined in the Manual of Style (MOS) of Wikipedia. According to MOS:SAY, "speculate" is considered a loaded word that implies unfounded, unreliable, or baseless ideas. Instead, it is recommended to use neutral language to describe the views of scientists and politicians, such as "have suggested" or "have proposed." In this case, a more appropriate sentence could be: {{tqb|"Some scientists and politicians have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may have accidentally leaked from a laboratory, but this theory lacks supporting evidence."}} This sentence is more neutral and accurately reflects the current state of knowledge about the COVID-19 lab leak theory. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
* It is appropriate to follow the guidelines outlined in the Manual of Style (MOS) of Wikipedia. According to MOS:SAY, "speculate" is considered a loaded word that implies unfounded, unreliable, or baseless ideas. Instead, it is recommended to use neutral language to describe the views of scientists and politicians, such as "have suggested" or "have proposed." In this case, a more appropriate sentence could be: {{tqb|"Some scientists and politicians have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may have accidentally leaked from a laboratory, but this theory lacks supporting evidence."}} This sentence is more neutral and accurately reflects the current state of knowledge about the COVID-19 lab leak theory. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:No. "Neutral" means mirroring sources. They say speculate, so Wikipedia follows. That is the careful and correct path which avoids watering down the speculative nature of LL. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
*:No. "Neutral" means mirroring sources. They say speculate, so Wikipedia follows. That is the careful and correct path which avoids watering down the speculative nature of LL. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::While it is true that Wikipedia aims to mirror sources and accurately represent the views of scientists and politicians, using words like "speculate" can still be problematic. As mentioned earlier, "speculate" is a loaded word that can imply that the theory lacks credibility or is baseless, even if this is not the intention. This can create a bias against the theory, even if there is evidence to support it. |
|||
:::The goal of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is to present information objectively and without bias. While it is important to accurately represent the views of sources, it is equally important to avoid loaded language that can influence the reader's perception of the information presented. Using neutral language, such as "have suggested" or "have proposed," can help maintain a neutral tone and accurately represent the views of sources without implying credibility or lack thereof. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 16:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Most scientists agree ... == |
== Most scientists agree ... == |
Revision as of 16:00, 3 April 2023
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus
- There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
- There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
- In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
- The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
- The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
- The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
- The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "
based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers.
" (RfC, December 2021) - The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
- The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)
Lab leak theory sources
List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
[] · |
---|
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID |
|
[] · |
---|
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION. |
|
[] · |
---|
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution! |
|
References
WSJ report of lab leak origin
A new report from 26 February 2022 states that the lab leak origin theory, based on previously presented evidence, is now joined by the U.S. Department of Energy. How should this be addressed in the article vis-à-vis the previous consensus? Ppt91talk 18:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- I should clarify: there are still departments, as was previously stated, that do not share these views. What I meant was how should the addition of another department to FBI's previous conclusions be addressed. Ppt91talk 18:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- See this relevant discussion at Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Heads_up_on_new_WSJ_story_re_DOE_assessment. This would be even less WP:DUE for this article than that one. But as more coverage appears, it may end up DUE for a short mention in both. No big changes, as single US govt agencies do not set the scientific consensus for wikipedia. But maybe a short mention next to that original sentence about the govt agency assessments. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Shibbolethink Thanks so much. This makes sense. While I don't edit in this area a lot, I thought the article warranted a reaction and wanted to check in about any progress in consensus. I know that those actively involved in the subject go through large amounts of new material almost every week and, as someone who works primarily with past events and pretty stable secondary sources, I can only imagine the amount of work that requires. Ppt91talk 19:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Why should the opinion of the US Department of Energy on this subject be more relevant for the consensus than, say, the opinion of the chief janitor of the Town Hall of Ouagadougou? Even if consensus were a vote, medical laypeople would not have one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Shibbolethink Thanks so much. This makes sense. While I don't edit in this area a lot, I thought the article warranted a reaction and wanted to check in about any progress in consensus. I know that those actively involved in the subject go through large amounts of new material almost every week and, as someone who works primarily with past events and pretty stable secondary sources, I can only imagine the amount of work that requires. Ppt91talk 19:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- See this relevant discussion at Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Heads_up_on_new_WSJ_story_re_DOE_assessment. This would be even less WP:DUE for this article than that one. But as more coverage appears, it may end up DUE for a short mention in both. No big changes, as single US govt agencies do not set the scientific consensus for wikipedia. But maybe a short mention next to that original sentence about the govt agency assessments. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
If DoE is listed as 'low confidence', the FBI should also explicitly be listed as 'moderate confidence' level for the lab-origin theory. 194.102.58.14 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Weird how IPs are now allowed to make comments to the talkpage
NPR is also talking about the story. NPR 194.102.58.14 (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
"Say" or "Speculate"
MOS:SAY is unambiguous that we should not use loaded language like "speculate".
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.
Therefore, this revert [5] by USER:Bon courage should be undone. Adoring nanny (talk)
- It doesn't say they should not be used, but used with extra care. Wikipedia using offhandly "said" for the speculation would be coy to the point of POV. Hence what we have is carefully worded for NPOV, which is not negotiable (and certainly not subservient to a misunderstanding about a mere style guide). Bon courage (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- According to the FBI, for example, they have "assessed"[6]. I don't propose using that term, either. But if we are following the precedent you propose, it would fit right in. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not precedent, NPOV. We're nice and clear that speculation (without evidence) is just that. Bon courage (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which sources call it speculation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @Shibbolethink: for apparently reading my mind. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which sources call it speculation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not precedent, NPOV. We're nice and clear that speculation (without evidence) is just that. Bon courage (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- According to the FBI, for example, they have "assessed"[6]. I don't propose using that term, either. But if we are following the precedent you propose, it would fit right in. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speculation implies empty gossip; but these are claims made by scientists, not bloggers. The correct word is "conjectured" (defined by OED as "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information"), which fits far better than either "said" or "speculated". DFlhb (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is quite wrong. Entire books have been written about scientific speculation.[7] Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. Thanks, Bon courage. I'll buy that and read it. DFlhb (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speculation is the correct term here. It's what's been stable at COVID-19 lab leak theory:
has led to speculation that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from the Wuhan lab
. it's also what's been stable here for years: [8] since at least May 2021: [9].And what our WP:BESTSOURCES and experts say, e.g.: [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Every single one of these uses "speculation" to describe the support for the lab leak theory, and many go on to say it is without any substantive evidence. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)- But according to the policy, use of other words by the sources is not a reason to use them on Wikipedia:
Adoring nanny (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.
- What "policy"? You're bungling with a style guide. Bon courage (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Those are mainly scientific sources, and they obviously use words that make due implications; they are not "some types of writing". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- I search WP:SAY in vain for a statement that scientific writing is not a type of writing, or that it does not apply to scientific writing. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think you may be glossing over the substantive point Hob Gadling made. What WP:SAY actually says is:
In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms
. This is actually not the case for scientific writing, where precision of word choice is much more important than avoiding repetition: [20][21][22][23]Scientific (and other technical) writing is exactly what is not meant by "some types of writing
" here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)- On what basis do you know what is or is not meant by "some types of writing"? Is there a further policy document I should be aware of? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think you may be glossing over the substantive point Hob Gadling made. What WP:SAY actually says is:
- I search WP:SAY in vain for a statement that scientific writing is not a type of writing, or that it does not apply to scientific writing. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Speculation is the correct term here. It's what's been stable at COVID-19 lab leak theory:
- I stand corrected. Thanks, Bon courage. I'll buy that and read it. DFlhb (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is quite wrong. Entire books have been written about scientific speculation.[7] Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Say" is the right word to use here. The scientists and others that stand behind the lab-leak aren't speculating on it, they are saying it is true, but importantly our sentence continues on past that to point out this view is not entertained in a majority position, which from the stance we have repeated said here, appropriately delegates the lab-leak theory to a fringe-like opinion. But the people implied by this sentence are "saying" the lab-leak is true. --Masem (t) 16:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Err, are any scientists saying it "is true"? Really? Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think the most common minority opinion among actual experts (not obscure fungal geneticists or toxicologists) is that it is "as likely" as zoonosis. Not that it is "more likely." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah and "it is true" (whatever "it" is) is only said by charlatans surely? Bon courage (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think the most common minority opinion among actual experts (not obscure fungal geneticists or toxicologists) is that it is "as likely" as zoonosis. Not that it is "more likely." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- MOS:SAY, as quoted above:
Extra care is needed with more loaded terms.
Blindly replacing all those terms by "say" everywhere is not "extra care". Checking the sources, as Shibbolethink did, is extra care. Even if those people did "say" it actually happened, which is in doubt, if many others call that "speculating" that is the word that should be used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Err, are any scientists saying it "is true"? Really? Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Scientists have speculated about lab origins in the same sense they have speculated about zoonotic origins. That is to say, it is plausible, unproven, and under active investigation. I think the word is appropriate in both cases, though I don't think a case can be made against "say". There are serious NPOV issues on this page, but this isn't one of them. Sennalen (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is appropriate to follow the guidelines outlined in the Manual of Style (MOS) of Wikipedia. According to MOS:SAY, "speculate" is considered a loaded word that implies unfounded, unreliable, or baseless ideas. Instead, it is recommended to use neutral language to describe the views of scientists and politicians, such as "have suggested" or "have proposed." In this case, a more appropriate sentence could be:
This sentence is more neutral and accurately reflects the current state of knowledge about the COVID-19 lab leak theory. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)"Some scientists and politicians have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may have accidentally leaked from a laboratory, but this theory lacks supporting evidence."
- No. "Neutral" means mirroring sources. They say speculate, so Wikipedia follows. That is the careful and correct path which avoids watering down the speculative nature of LL. Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- While it is true that Wikipedia aims to mirror sources and accurately represent the views of scientists and politicians, using words like "speculate" can still be problematic. As mentioned earlier, "speculate" is a loaded word that can imply that the theory lacks credibility or is baseless, even if this is not the intention. This can create a bias against the theory, even if there is evidence to support it.
- The goal of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is to present information objectively and without bias. While it is important to accurately represent the views of sources, it is equally important to avoid loaded language that can influence the reader's perception of the information presented. Using neutral language, such as "have suggested" or "have proposed," can help maintain a neutral tone and accurately represent the views of sources without implying credibility or lack thereof. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Most scientists agree ...
The citations do not support the "most" assertion. Has anyone done a formal poll of scientists to find out? I have replaced this with the NPOV "Some". Tuntable (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's sourced. So changing the text to break with the sourcing is POV. Bon courage (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is the seventy-bajilionth time we've discussed this. The sources support a consensus of scientists (and several of our WP:BESTSOURCES actually use "most"), so we repeat that assertion here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)