Tag: Reply |
Bon courage (talk | contribs) →most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis: getting disruptive Tag: Reply |
||
Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
::::Having expertise is not a conflict of interest, and academic publishing has mechanisms for declaring & managing COIs and assessing scientific worth through peer review. Many cranks have a COI of belief, and/or are in it for the fame, thrills, adulation of other cranks, fantasies of future vindication, irrational quasi-religious belief in their 'cause', or grift. Per [[WP:MEDRS]] editors here have no standing to object to otherwise reliable sources because of personal objection to the funding source(s). [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC) |
::::Having expertise is not a conflict of interest, and academic publishing has mechanisms for declaring & managing COIs and assessing scientific worth through peer review. Many cranks have a COI of belief, and/or are in it for the fame, thrills, adulation of other cranks, fantasies of future vindication, irrational quasi-religious belief in their 'cause', or grift. Per [[WP:MEDRS]] editors here have no standing to object to otherwise reliable sources because of personal objection to the funding source(s). [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::I am an expert molecular biology and immunology. This is about a potential scandal, not about medical advice, the concensus statement clearly says a potential lab accident is not a [[WP:MEDRS]] topic. The references given to support this statement come from virologists with huge conflict of interest. They have worked with the lab under suspicion and uploaded viral sequences that are 99.5% identical to SARS2. Or planned to introduce human-identical FCSs into bat-CoVs from S China in Wuhan in 2018 (SARS2 is the only one of ~300 Sarbecoviruses with a FCS, which furthermore is human-identical, related viruses are exactly from the mentioned regions, and in caused a pandemic exactly in Wuhan just one year after the research proposal). The statement is furthermore misleading as many of the cited virologists did not believe what they published, see e.g. https://www.commentary.org/articles/christine-rosen/covid-origins-kristian-andersen-media-coverage/. some of the cited virologists have been suspected to have caused lab-derived pandemics in the past: https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/did-west-africas-ebola-outbreak-of-2014-have-a-lab-origin/ [[User:Vbruttel|Vbruttel]] ([[User talk:Vbruttel|talk]]) 15:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
:::::I am an expert molecular biology and immunology. This is about a potential scandal, not about medical advice, the concensus statement clearly says a potential lab accident is not a [[WP:MEDRS]] topic. The references given to support this statement come from virologists with huge conflict of interest. They have worked with the lab under suspicion and uploaded viral sequences that are 99.5% identical to SARS2. Or planned to introduce human-identical FCSs into bat-CoVs from S China in Wuhan in 2018 (SARS2 is the only one of ~300 Sarbecoviruses with a FCS, which furthermore is human-identical, related viruses are exactly from the mentioned regions, and in caused a pandemic exactly in Wuhan just one year after the research proposal). The statement is furthermore misleading as many of the cited virologists did not believe what they published, see e.g. https://www.commentary.org/articles/christine-rosen/covid-origins-kristian-andersen-media-coverage/. some of the cited virologists have been suspected to have caused lab-derived pandemics in the past: https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/did-west-africas-ebola-outbreak-of-2014-have-a-lab-origin/ [[User:Vbruttel|Vbruttel]] ([[User talk:Vbruttel|talk]]) 15:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::That's a false description of the RfC outcome. [[WP:MEDRS]] applies to [[WP:BMI]] but not to [[WP:NOTBMI]]. No one cares that you (say you) are an expert; what matters here are reliable sources. Frankly, the stuff about virologists having a conflict of interest with virology is just conspiracist noise. You don't help your case by citing crappy sources like independentsciencenews.org. Basically, Wikipedia is not going to indulge conspiracy theories, and using this talk page as a forum for them is becoming disruptive. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== primary source == |
== primary source == |
Revision as of 15:38, 29 September 2023
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page history | |
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
most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis
This is a highly biased and controversial statement. By what measure do you count "most scientists"? The link is to a single paper, there has been no general survey on the matter to see what the real dominant opinion is in the sciientific community. I propose changing the above to "some scientists believe that..." to more accurately reflet that it is one opinion of a number that need to be seriously considered. 83.33.197.248 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Read the sources. This has been discussed ad nauseam. Bon courage (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Considering that for a while scientists around the world who dared to believe it was not zoonosis was branded conspiracy theorist and could have their grants and jobs in jeopardy... Thinker78 (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- What a wild concept that people who believe in things which have no evidentiary basis shouldn't work in the field of science. TarnishedPathtalk 05:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- What a wild concept that scientists should stick only to one theory and not dare to investigate other possibilities. That sounds more like dogma and not science. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Investigation is one thing. Belief in claims which have zero evidentiary basis is an entirely different thing. TarnishedPathtalk 04:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- The essay linked above WP:NOLABLEAK cites the highly noted paper by Kristian Andersen et al which purports to rule out the lab leak idea entirely. This paper has been cited thousands of times and seems to be what people point to when they refer to the consensus on Covid-19 origin.
- But the paper's lead author was not overly sure about lab leak being impossible. In private emails, he used the term "highly likely" to describe the scenario, and wasn't very impressed by the pangolin intermediate evidence. One particularly interesting quote is "The main issue is that accidental escape is in fact highly likely–it’s not some fringe theory."
- His colleagues warned him off discussing the idea publicly because it could fuel conspiracy theories, and because it wouldn't do much good because any evidence for such an event would likely "never come out".
- All this from The Intercept[5] which is a reliable source. Wizmut (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- "the paper's lead author was not overly sure about lab leak being impossible". So? That's not really the statement you think it is. Scientists are careful about using words like impossible. There's more things that are possible in the universe than impossible. That doesn't mean all things have equal likelihood. Again, the lab leak conspiracy has zero evidence. The intergalactic warlord Xenu from the Church of Scientology has at least some evidence (written about in a book, even if you think it's bad evidence). The existence of Xenu is also possible, but extraordinarily unlikely. Where as the lab leak conspiracy is founded on suppositions about gaps in evidence. I.e., a conspiracy theory. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's remotely likely. TarnishedPathtalk 10:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, ripping the words "highly likely" out of their context is probably misleading. Likelihoods always depend on preconditions; there are conditional likelihoods that can vary massively. Did he mean "this specific scenario is highly likely in this special case" or "leaks in general are highly likely"? Who knows?
- Filtering a non-scientific source like a private e-mail through a journalistic source practically guarantees that you are playing telephone (US) or Chinese Whispers (UK). There is a reason why Wikipedia prefers scientific sources to journalistic ones when the subject is science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. TarnishedPathtalk 12:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- It shows that the most cited person on "debunking" the lab leak theory was saying he was more certain of its dubiousness than he actually was, as he was being pressured by his colleagues and higher-ups not to seriously consider it because of the trouble it would cause to do so.
- They didn't think it was a conspiracy theory, or a bad theory, they just didn't want to handle the question in the paper. In fact, they knew what conclusion they preferred before considering it. Andersen said "we all really, really wish that we could do that [rule out lab leak]... but unfortunately it’s just not possible given the data."[6]
- Another author, Andrew Rambaut: "I literally swivel day by day thinking it is a lab escape or natural."
- Andersen again, after publication: "I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved" and "we also can’t fully rule out engineering"
- Andersen has since testified to Congress that he never considered the lab leak after publication of the paper, but this isn't so.
- Rambaut didn't want to get in trouble: "Given the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus"
- So again, the authors expressed serious fence-sitting in private while stating their certainty in public. If the most cited people in the world on this issue are not sure, Wikipedia should not be so sure either. Wizmut (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You should really read WP:RS. Wikipedia is based on sources that are as good as possible. You are trying to circumvent that requirement by using lesser sources that say that the statements in the good sources are somehow dubious. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- "the paper's lead author was not overly sure about lab leak being impossible". So? That's not really the statement you think it is. Scientists are careful about using words like impossible. There's more things that are possible in the universe than impossible. That doesn't mean all things have equal likelihood. Again, the lab leak conspiracy has zero evidence. The intergalactic warlord Xenu from the Church of Scientology has at least some evidence (written about in a book, even if you think it's bad evidence). The existence of Xenu is also possible, but extraordinarily unlikely. Where as the lab leak conspiracy is founded on suppositions about gaps in evidence. I.e., a conspiracy theory. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's remotely likely. TarnishedPathtalk 10:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- this is just not true. there is a long list of very strong evidence suggesting that SARS2 came from a lab, see e.g. https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COVID-19-SARS-CoV-2 Vbruttel (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Investigation is one thing. Belief in claims which have zero evidentiary basis is an entirely different thing. TarnishedPathtalk 04:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- What a wild concept that scientists should stick only to one theory and not dare to investigate other possibilities. That sounds more like dogma and not science. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- What a wild concept that people who believe in things which have no evidentiary basis shouldn't work in the field of science. TarnishedPathtalk 05:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Considering that for a while scientists around the world who dared to believe it was not zoonosis was branded conspiracy theorist and could have their grants and jobs in jeopardy... Thinker78 (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Read the talk page threads we already have you have brought nothing new to the table. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Also the CIA and the FBI have release a summary of intelligence which pretty much says nothing to see here. The way things stand at the moment this page should be renamed COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy. AlanStalk 09:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. The list of sources for this preposterous statement is weak. For example, here is one of the top-listed sources cited:
- “Cell(Review). 184 (19): 4848–4856. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017. PMC 8373617. PMID 34480864. As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event...There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, in contrast to the clear epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan . . .”
- This source is obviously outdated — for instance, the Wall Street Journal published an article in May 2021 stating that three investigators from the WIV became ill in November 2019 and had symptoms similar to those observed in COVID-19. Further, “clear epidemiological links” is a massive stretch — see, e.g., the persistent lack of evidence now years later regarding an intermediate animal host for SARS-CoV-2.
- More to the point, flatly claiming to express the view of “most scientists” without citing to a carefully constructed scientific poll of same is inherently unscientific, and should be promptly deleted. 2601:243:CE80:E6F0:640B:F2EA:F1A5:3CD3 (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- The WSJ is not a peer-reviewed academic paper. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Stating that investigators from the WIV became ill in Nov 2019 is meaningless when the virus is believed to started circulating in Wuhan in late October/early November 2019, when employees of WIV would have been able to catch anything else that the local population of Wuhan would have been able to catch. There is still no evidence of anything occurring in WIV. Evidence is kind of important. Despite FBI/CIA investigations nada, nothing, zilch. Just a bunch of hot hair from conspiracy theorists like Rand Paul et. al. TarnishedPathtalk 11:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You are correct, the statement is highly misleading, and all references refere to virologists, which may be biased here. A poll by Prof. Justin Kinney on twitter showed that ~90% of scientists do not consider this question solved. It suggest replacing the sentence with "many virologists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis". Vbruttel (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is the guy who'll sell you a furin cleavage conspiracy beer stein[8] right? or a 'blameless pangolin'[9] rucksack? No bias there I'm sure. And with the proposal that Wikipedia bases something on a 'poll' from these crankier parts of Xitter, Wikipedia reaches its low point for the day. Cheers, everyone. Bon courage (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- So, you see no violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources when Peter Daszak's report saying a lab accident is "highly unlikely" is quoted despite Peter Daszak having received ~400k per year in salary from Ecohealth Alliance, which finances what he calls gain of function experiments on bat coronaviruses, and planned to add furin cleavage sites to human ACE2 binding viruses in Wuhan in 2018.
- But a Professor and genetics expert that has not received any compensation whatsoever here is biased, because he helped to start a non-profit organisation to raise awareness to these risky experiments, or because that NGO sells some mugs? Vbruttel (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Having expertise is not a conflict of interest, and academic publishing has mechanisms for declaring & managing COIs and assessing scientific worth through peer review. Many cranks have a COI of belief, and/or are in it for the fame, thrills, adulation of other cranks, fantasies of future vindication, irrational quasi-religious belief in their 'cause', or grift. Per WP:MEDRS editors here have no standing to object to otherwise reliable sources because of personal objection to the funding source(s). Bon courage (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am an expert molecular biology and immunology. This is about a potential scandal, not about medical advice, the concensus statement clearly says a potential lab accident is not a WP:MEDRS topic. The references given to support this statement come from virologists with huge conflict of interest. They have worked with the lab under suspicion and uploaded viral sequences that are 99.5% identical to SARS2. Or planned to introduce human-identical FCSs into bat-CoVs from S China in Wuhan in 2018 (SARS2 is the only one of ~300 Sarbecoviruses with a FCS, which furthermore is human-identical, related viruses are exactly from the mentioned regions, and in caused a pandemic exactly in Wuhan just one year after the research proposal). The statement is furthermore misleading as many of the cited virologists did not believe what they published, see e.g. https://www.commentary.org/articles/christine-rosen/covid-origins-kristian-andersen-media-coverage/. some of the cited virologists have been suspected to have caused lab-derived pandemics in the past: https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/did-west-africas-ebola-outbreak-of-2014-have-a-lab-origin/ Vbruttel (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's a false description of the RfC outcome. WP:MEDRS applies to WP:BMI but not to WP:NOTBMI. No one cares that you (say you) are an expert; what matters here are reliable sources. Frankly, the stuff about virologists having a conflict of interest with virology is just conspiracist noise. You don't help your case by citing crappy sources like independentsciencenews.org. Basically, Wikipedia is not going to indulge conspiracy theories, and using this talk page as a forum for them is becoming disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am an expert molecular biology and immunology. This is about a potential scandal, not about medical advice, the concensus statement clearly says a potential lab accident is not a WP:MEDRS topic. The references given to support this statement come from virologists with huge conflict of interest. They have worked with the lab under suspicion and uploaded viral sequences that are 99.5% identical to SARS2. Or planned to introduce human-identical FCSs into bat-CoVs from S China in Wuhan in 2018 (SARS2 is the only one of ~300 Sarbecoviruses with a FCS, which furthermore is human-identical, related viruses are exactly from the mentioned regions, and in caused a pandemic exactly in Wuhan just one year after the research proposal). The statement is furthermore misleading as many of the cited virologists did not believe what they published, see e.g. https://www.commentary.org/articles/christine-rosen/covid-origins-kristian-andersen-media-coverage/. some of the cited virologists have been suspected to have caused lab-derived pandemics in the past: https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/did-west-africas-ebola-outbreak-of-2014-have-a-lab-origin/ Vbruttel (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Having expertise is not a conflict of interest, and academic publishing has mechanisms for declaring & managing COIs and assessing scientific worth through peer review. Many cranks have a COI of belief, and/or are in it for the fame, thrills, adulation of other cranks, fantasies of future vindication, irrational quasi-religious belief in their 'cause', or grift. Per WP:MEDRS editors here have no standing to object to otherwise reliable sources because of personal objection to the funding source(s). Bon courage (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is the guy who'll sell you a furin cleavage conspiracy beer stein[8] right? or a 'blameless pangolin'[9] rucksack? No bias there I'm sure. And with the proposal that Wikipedia bases something on a 'poll' from these crankier parts of Xitter, Wikipedia reaches its low point for the day. Cheers, everyone. Bon courage (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
primary source
with the mainstream media downplaying and denying it as a valid scientific theory.
this cannot be sourced to a primary source such as a US oversight house report which is partisan and not WP:MEDRS Andre🚐 21:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think that this NY Mag article or this NPR transcript provides adequate sourcing for that statement? Or do you think that the statement would be better if written simply as media instead of mainstream media? Poppa shark (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to say that neither is sufficient sourcing for this to be in the lead section given PRIMARY, MEDRS, etc. The Chait NY Mag piece is practically an opinion column. The NPR transcript even if you assumed it was a reliable source for scientific and medical topics, doesn't even say that. Andre🚐 01:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Current consensus is that sources do not need to be MEDRS High Tinker (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- They do for WP:BMI. However, an interpretation of Chait's opinion is not appropriate for anything (biomedical or not). Bon courage (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- My reading of WP:BMI, is that it doesn't apply to beliefs or history. The claim being made is about the historical beliefs of the mainstream media with respect to the lab leak theory being a scientific theory. Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's wasn't my point. Bon courage (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't understand your point then. What is your point? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- an interpretation of Chait's opinion is not appropriate for anything (biomedical or not). Bon courage (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes 100% this. It is WP:OR because it's an interpretation of an opinion. Not of a fact or an expert assessment. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- an interpretation of Chait's opinion is not appropriate for anything (biomedical or not). Bon courage (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't understand your point then. What is your point? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's wasn't my point. Bon courage (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- My reading of WP:BMI, is that it doesn't apply to beliefs or history. The claim being made is about the historical beliefs of the mainstream media with respect to the lab leak theory being a scientific theory. Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- They do for WP:BMI. However, an interpretation of Chait's opinion is not appropriate for anything (biomedical or not). Bon courage (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Current consensus is that sources do not need to be MEDRS High Tinker (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to say that neither is sufficient sourcing for this to be in the lead section given PRIMARY, MEDRS, etc. The Chait NY Mag piece is practically an opinion column. The NPR transcript even if you assumed it was a reliable source for scientific and medical topics, doesn't even say that. Andre🚐 01:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- It seems as though Andrevan is asking for a medical journal to source this claim, but I don't see how a medical journal is required for the claim, and frankly, it doesn't seem to be the right fit. The claim is about the lab leak theory in the eyes of the media, and medical journals don't generally write on how the media perceives something. The US government has been deemed by Wikipedians as a reliable source on Wikipedia. However, with respect to COVID, the reliability of the US government as reliable source is being questioned by some Wikipedians. Is the US government a reliable source for COVID information or not? As Wikipedians, do we get to determine based on our own opinions which US government publications are valid, and which are unreliable? Lenschulwitz (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
"The US government has been deemed by Wikipedians as a reliable source on Wikipedia"
← shit! when did that happen!? They're reliable for what they said (as everything is), but on myriad topics reliability would depend on context. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)- I stand corrected. I thought I read once that the U.S. government was a reliable source, perhaps I remembered incorrectly. I expected to find it listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as a reliable source. Do you doubt that the U.S. government is reliable with respect to this specific claim? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- What claim? Politicians and science generally don't mix (remember the Trump bleach injections?) Bon courage (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- The claim: that the mainstream media did not believe that the lab leak theory was a valid scientific theory. By the way, this isn't a controversial claim. It isn't even a scientific claim. It is a claim, made by the U.S. government regarding the beliefs of the mainstream media. Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody (sane) believes it's a "valid" scientific theory. All the media reaction stuff is already covered in depth with good sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, so it sounds as though you don't have a problem with the claim, or the source, is that correct? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- No. Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think we already discussed about the issue about the lab leak theory. I mean it was regarding conspiracy theory but I guess for some reason you believe that Department of Energy scientists and other researchers who come to similar conclusions are not sane. I don't think it is appropriate to use psychiatric words to mislabel researchers or other people who don't agree with one's points of view. See Political abuse of psychiatry. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- "Sane" in this case means "within the mainstream" and it's a term of art, for example in computer science, a "build environment" can be checked for "sanity." meaning basically rational, normal, and standard, and understandable. I doubt it is intended as a slight toward those with actual mental health concerns, but, I can see how it might be one of those terms, like "master" and "slave" for SATA drives, that will be deprecated to be more sensitive. Regardless I think the point stands that, sanity nonwithstanding, nobody in the authoritative, rational, reality-based source network seems to really treat the lab leak claims by the certain republican portions of the US govt to be serious scientifically Andre🚐 04:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Scientific theory states "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results". I.e., evidence and testing is required. Per what is meant by the term "scientific theory", anyone who thinks the lab leak conspiracy is a "valid" scientific theory has a few roos loose in the top paddock. TarnishedPathtalk 04:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly. Thinker78 is completely wrong in thinking any "scientists and other researchers" believe LL is a "scientific theory" of any kind in the terms they use (that in fact is the smear here). Bon courage (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- They might have a political smear that they wish to push, but anyone who knows what terms properly mean, can't say that the Lab Leak conspiracy is a scientific theory with any sort of integrity. TarnishedPathtalk 04:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Don't start adding stuff I didn't say Bon Courage. I wrote what I wrote. No idea why you mean with "of any kind in the terms they use". Also, it is very evident that many people in this page wants to drive the narrative to discredit the lab leak theory forcefully for some reason.
- To me it is very obvious as an analytical person that a lab leak could have happened, as well as transmission from an animal. It wouldn't be the first time a laboratory accident happened. It wouldn't be the first time of a zoonotic transmission. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You have your views, but if you want to understand what I meant you need to click and read scientific theory and pause before implying any respectable scientist thinks LL is that, and getting huffy about word use! Bon courage (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't need discrediting, it is discredited already. The second Rand Paul started pushing these sorts of unhinged conspiracies it was discredited. The second people push suppositions based on gaps in evidence, rather than relying on evidence for the development of knowledge, they discredit themselves. TarnishedPathtalk 05:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- We already discussed lab leak and conspiracy theory as you can read in this talk page. It is not a conspiracy theory and it is interesting you think it is a conspiracy. Check Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Requested move 15 August 2023. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Some sources say it's a conspiracy theory, others it's mostly a conspiracy theory, others that it has allowed a rich variety of conspiracy theories to flourish. While the bare acknowledgement of LL being (remotely) possible is certainly a legit position to hold, pretty much everything encrusted onto this is crankoid/ignorant. Bon courage (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- More to the point this has only become passable as some kind of legitimate discourse in some quarters since Rand Paul, an exceedingly unhinged conspiracy theorist, has repeatedly used government resources to constantly push the narrative. TarnishedPathtalk 05:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- So show my any evidence for it then and not merely supposition based on a gap of evidence, which is a hallmark of conspiracy theories. TarnishedPathtalk 05:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Again, read the linked discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, no evidence. TarnishedPathtalk 08:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Again, read the linked discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Some sources say it's a conspiracy theory, others it's mostly a conspiracy theory, others that it has allowed a rich variety of conspiracy theories to flourish. While the bare acknowledgement of LL being (remotely) possible is certainly a legit position to hold, pretty much everything encrusted onto this is crankoid/ignorant. Bon courage (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly. Thinker78 is completely wrong in thinking any "scientists and other researchers" believe LL is a "scientific theory" of any kind in the terms they use (that in fact is the smear here). Bon courage (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, so it sounds as though you don't have a problem with the claim, or the source, is that correct? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody (sane) believes it's a "valid" scientific theory. All the media reaction stuff is already covered in depth with good sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- The claim: that the mainstream media did not believe that the lab leak theory was a valid scientific theory. By the way, this isn't a controversial claim. It isn't even a scientific claim. It is a claim, made by the U.S. government regarding the beliefs of the mainstream media. Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- What claim? Politicians and science generally don't mix (remember the Trump bleach injections?) Bon courage (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. I thought I read once that the U.S. government was a reliable source, perhaps I remembered incorrectly. I expected to find it listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as a reliable source. Do you doubt that the U.S. government is reliable with respect to this specific claim? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- You can't source the US house oversight committee for this claim. It doesn't necessarily have to be a medical journal, but the existing sourcing does not suffice. Andre🚐 18:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Andrevan, your statements are conclusory, but not explanatory, can you explain your reasoning so that I can better understand your perspective? Lenschulwitz (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's been explained. You can't use a WP:PRIMARY source (the US govt, a partisan oversight committee) for a controversial claim of fact. Andre🚐 19:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- What makes this a "controversial claim" in your eyes? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's not reasonable to take something straight out of the partisan republican committee's statements, a primary source, and use that to assert something not obvious, and extremely politically charged ("the mainstream media downplayed and denied... etc"), it really beggars belief that we're still discussing it when there's obviously no policy-based argument that this would be ok. If you can find an authoritative expert source that is beyond reproach, perhaps this statement can come in. The sources provided are extremely thin as explained. Andre🚐 21:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Claims made by partisan nutters don't constitute evidence. TarnishedPathtalk 00:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- What makes this a "controversial claim" in your eyes?
Probably the fact that it's a claim that's difficult to source to higher quality sources. It's controversial because it deals with FRINGE topic material and how it is treated in the "mainstream" media. That's a hot button issue, as pretty explicitly set out in WP:FRINGE:reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.
While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (e.g., plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections
- On wikipedia, extraordinary claims (such as how the "mainstream media" views the lab leak theory) require extraordinary sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's not reasonable to take something straight out of the partisan republican committee's statements, a primary source, and use that to assert something not obvious, and extremely politically charged ("the mainstream media downplayed and denied... etc"), it really beggars belief that we're still discussing it when there's obviously no policy-based argument that this would be ok. If you can find an authoritative expert source that is beyond reproach, perhaps this statement can come in. The sources provided are extremely thin as explained. Andre🚐 21:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- What makes this a "controversial claim" in your eyes? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's been explained. You can't use a WP:PRIMARY source (the US govt, a partisan oversight committee) for a controversial claim of fact. Andre🚐 19:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Andrevan, your statements are conclusory, but not explanatory, can you explain your reasoning so that I can better understand your perspective? Lenschulwitz (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
New claims involving the CIA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
News reports are appearing in mostly right wing publications about the apparent testimony of a CIA whistleblower who reportedly indicated wrongdoing regarding covid claims.[1][2] Anyone has read about this in other sources more reliable? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:ECREE and this is literally the most extraordinary claim yet made on this talk page, with the least evidence also provided on this talk page. I have yet to see any substantiation of this, or even coverage in anything more than newsweek, which itself is not an RS. Its all anonymous allegations from cloaked sources, without a shred of evidence. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for telling me you haven't read this in reliable sources. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The actual ruling on 2013+ Newsweek reliability is that it is determined on a "case-by-case" basis. The Newsweek story mentions the February 2023 determination by the Department of Energy that Covid-19 "likely" originated from a Wuhan lab, as had been reported in various reliable sources, e.g. CNN, NPR, The Guardian. As we know, the DOE changed its description of the "lab" hypothesis as having changed from "undecided" to "low confidence", but this leaves us wondering whether "low confidence" represents higher or lower confidence than "undecided". Fabrickator (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for telling me you haven't read this in reliable sources. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Shibbolethink. WP:REDFLAG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- An unnamed CIA operative, "alleged that the CIA "offered six analysts significant monetary incentives to change their position on COVID-19's origin."", Which the CIA (in effect) denies. (I would like b better sources for this claim. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Primary source, the US House Oversight Committee, confirms that a "whistleblower, who presents as a highly credible senior-level CIA officer," did indeed claim wrongdoing regarding covid origins conclusions by the CIA.[3] Thinker78 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW, Jon Cohen[4] fiveby(zero) 14:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- So (in effect) a claim that a claim was made. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I will just add this 2007 news snippet here: CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits.[5] Not really many at all but I would say they were just sloppy people who didn't use specialized proxies.
- Also, List of CIA controversies. No idea how accurate the claim of the whistleblower is but CIA wrongdoing is nothing new at all. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- What possible relevance does that Randall piece have to this? Bon courage (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I found it on the list of CIA controversies. I simply decided to share it because we are talking about the CIA and claims. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please remember WP:NOTFORUM. This is not a place for discussing irrelevant material which cannot help with this article. Bon courage (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I found it on the list of CIA controversies. I simply decided to share it because we are talking about the CIA and claims. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- What possible relevance does that Randall piece have to this? Bon courage (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- To answer your question, no, I haven't The void century 22:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Still not one single shred of evidence and in June the CIA and FBI released a summary of intelligence in which they admitted “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic”. It's about time people gave this conspiracy theory up. TarnishedPathtalk 07:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces [...] are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." And again, we already discussed whether the lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory and the consensus is that it is not. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- It may be an opinion piece but it can be used as a WP:RS insofar as it directly quotes the FBI/CIA and it links the document which it is quoting. Fact, intelligence sources have stated that "[w]e do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic". Again, there are numerous WP:RS which properly refer to the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory. The onus is on anyone contending it is anything less than a conspiracy to front up evidence, any at all. TarnishedPathtalk 00:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- TarnishedPath I am not understanding. You are repeating your view that the lab leak is a conspiracy. I get it, that's your opinion. But please take a reading of the discussion I linked. It was a case of WP:SNOW and you are repeating pointers already addressed there. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- The discussion was about whether the article title gets moved, not about actual reality. In reality, it's a what people who aren't influenced by hyper partisan politics call a conspiracy. TarnishedPathtalk 03:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- TarnishedPath I am not understanding. You are repeating your view that the lab leak is a conspiracy. I get it, that's your opinion. But please take a reading of the discussion I linked. It was a case of WP:SNOW and you are repeating pointers already addressed there. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- It may be an opinion piece but it can be used as a WP:RS insofar as it directly quotes the FBI/CIA and it links the document which it is quoting. Fact, intelligence sources have stated that "[w]e do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic". Again, there are numerous WP:RS which properly refer to the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory. The onus is on anyone contending it is anything less than a conspiracy to front up evidence, any at all. TarnishedPathtalk 00:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces [...] are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." And again, we already discussed whether the lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory and the consensus is that it is not. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- No it does not appear to have been picked up by quality sources and I doubt it will be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Could we get back to being an encyclopedia and stop talking about every conspiracy theory pushed by oddball conspiracy theorists mostly with ulterior motives? Scores of article talk pages have editors posting conspiracy theories with "evidence" no reliable source would take seriously. This is a newish phenomenon here. If something has any real substance and evidence, it will be published by reliable sources as something worthy of note. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia tries to be objective not pushing a POV just because one doesn't agree with it. There is an active investigation by a committee of the US House regarding this, therefore I don't think it is an "oddball conspiracy theory". It is an allegation taken seriously by an entity of the US government. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to be saying that American politicians cannot be oddballs. That is false. About half of them are climate change deniers, for example.
- The opinions of politicians on a scientific subject are simply not relevant for an article about that subject. Neither is the Department of Angular Momentum or any other departments for physical quantities. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia tries to be objective not pushing a POV just because one doesn't agree with it. There is an active investigation by a committee of the US House regarding this, therefore I don't think it is an "oddball conspiracy theory". It is an allegation taken seriously by an entity of the US government. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- More reliable sources have the story. ABC News, "CIA 'looking into' allegations connected to COVID-19 origins".[6] The South China Morning Post, "Did the CIA bribe analysts to reject Covid-19 China lab-leak theory? Scientists have doubts".[7] Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes all if buts and maybes, when (and if) the CIA admits this we can add it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wait a minute. If the CIA has in fact actively tried to hush down any evidence of wrongdoing from the CCP regarding bioweapon research and very bad security measures, as has been claimed by sources cited above, why should this agency alone be allowed to be the arbiter of truth in this case? It would be like letting a defendant in a trial decide if they are guilty or not. And given that the CCP is morally comparable with and as trustworthy as Nazi Germany, and wiped their Wuhan laboratory completely clean before United Nations inspections were allowed, why is there such systematic relentless hostility and belittling contempt here towards anybody who find this behaviour extremely suspicious? David A (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Now we've gone full WP:GODWIN, can somebody close this? Bon courage (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- You know you're dealing with conspiracies when people start invoking the deep-state and Nazi Germany. TarnishedPathtalk 03:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- We also can't take at their word an anonymous witness. Yes this is going nowhere. Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am just saying that given the CIA's extremely shady history of, for example, setting up a genuine far right tyranny in Chile after bringing down a democratic government, so the U.S. could continue to have access to Chile's natural resources, and not arresting anybody in the international oligarchy who systematically raped underage sex slaves at Jeffrey Epstein's island for 20 years, it shouldn't remotely be perceived as a completely reliable and highly moral sole arbiter of truth. Other sources should be considered as well. Also, do not take my comments as a convenient excuse to shut down an important discussion please. David A (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- But this can go nowhere, as these are unsubstantiated (and anonymous) allegations that (by your definition) can never be proved or disproven. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am just saying that given the CIA's extremely shady history of, for example, setting up a genuine far right tyranny in Chile after bringing down a democratic government, so the U.S. could continue to have access to Chile's natural resources, and not arresting anybody in the international oligarchy who systematically raped underage sex slaves at Jeffrey Epstein's island for 20 years, it shouldn't remotely be perceived as a completely reliable and highly moral sole arbiter of truth. Other sources should be considered as well. Also, do not take my comments as a convenient excuse to shut down an important discussion please. David A (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- David A, that was a little bit looking like in the side of forumish. Not saying it was as a fact but it looks like it was objected by bon courage. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Now we've gone full WP:GODWIN, can somebody close this? Bon courage (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is not necessary to wait for the CIA to admit or not. I think the allegation may be notable enough as to warrant discussion as to whether to include it in the page. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- How about not. Per WP:Fringe we don't put that stuff into articles. TarnishedPathtalk 03:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wait a minute. If the CIA has in fact actively tried to hush down any evidence of wrongdoing from the CCP regarding bioweapon research and very bad security measures, as has been claimed by sources cited above, why should this agency alone be allowed to be the arbiter of truth in this case? It would be like letting a defendant in a trial decide if they are guilty or not. And given that the CCP is morally comparable with and as trustworthy as Nazi Germany, and wiped their Wuhan laboratory completely clean before United Nations inspections were allowed, why is there such systematic relentless hostility and belittling contempt here towards anybody who find this behaviour extremely suspicious? David A (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- An extraordinary claim by someone in an organization designed for secrecy that comes from the US House Oversight Committee, a committee that has lost any imprimatur these days. No. Let us stick with scientific evaluations in an encyclopedia. If something real comes of this, then it may be worthy of inclusion. Patience. WP:ECREE O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ CIA Whistleblower's Bombshell Claim About COVID Conspiracy https://www.newsweek.com/cia-whistleblower-bombshell-claim-covid-conspiracy-1826498
- ^ Testimony from CIA whistleblower alleges new information on COVID-19 origins https://highlandcountypress.com/testimony-cia-whistleblower-alleges-new-information-covid-19-origins#gsc.tab=0
- ^ "Testimony From CIA Whistleblower Alleges New Information on COVID-19 Origins". House Oversight Committee. 12 September 2023. Retrieved 13 Sep 2023.
- ^ Cohen, Jon (September 12, 2023). "CIA bribed its own COVID-19 origin team to reject lab-leak theory, anonymous whistleblower claims". Science.
- ^ Mikkelsen, Randall (2007-08-16). "CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits". Reuters. Retrieved 13 Sep 2023.
- ^ Pezenik, Sasha (13 Sep 2023). "CIA 'looking into' allegations connected to COVID-19 origins". ABC News. Retrieved 15 Sep 2023.
- ^ Hyeon Choi, Seong; Peng, Dannie (13 Sep 2023). "Did the CIA bribe analysts to reject Covid-19 China lab-leak theory? Scientists have doubts". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 15 Sep 2023.
characteristic of conspiratorial thinking
[10] This change should be discussed on the talk page
This seems to be a proper and fitting characterization, sourced to a good source. What is the problem with it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- My primary concern is that the statement made was too broad. By my reading, it calls all arguments made in support of the lab leak conspiratorial. I would prefer language that is more hedged Poppa shark (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe get your opinion published in WP:RS and come back then? Bon courage (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- What Bon added was proper and fitting characterisation and backed by WP:RS. I'm thinking it stays. TarnishedPathtalk 23:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Quite clearly this is a controversial (if not fringe) view, so should not be stated in Wikivoice. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:CLEARLY eh? Why's it "controversial"? Is there any comparable source saying the LL arguments are anything other than conspiratorial? If not WP:YESPOV leads us to assert the knowledge. (In fact, this needs expanding from the source since the precise nature of the conspiratorial thinking has a different flavour for each constituent fallacy.) Bon courage (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- See the WHO, all US intelligence agencies etc. etc. who all say lab leak is a plausible scenario. Are they all conspiracy theorists? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merely saying it is "plausible" is not the same as advancing "arguments used in support of a laboratory leak". That is rather the point. Bon courage (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's plausible that I might live to 200. It's exceedingly unlikely though. TarnishedPathtalk 10:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- No it's not, you're mixing up the words plausible and possible. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- They are synonyms. So, no I'm not mixing them up. TarnishedPathtalk 01:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Other "synonyms, antonyms and similar words" Google shows me are "believable" and "convincing". I have never heard before that it is a synonym of "possible". It seems that the word is used in a huge range of meanings.
- As a consequence, when someone says something is "plausible", we simply do not know exactly what they mean, and we should not use it as a source without giving further details. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- The notion that "plausible" and "possible" are indistinguishable in meaning is one that cannot stand. Let's first understand that to say that two words are "synonyms" is not to claim they are identical in meaning. It is probably fair to say that they have overlapping meanings. Per google's definition, "plausibility" is "the quality of seeming reasonable or probable", while "possibility" is "a thing that ... may be the case". Saying something is "plausible" is really to say that it's "not implausible", i.e. you are willing to admit that it could be true, and that the likelihood of it being true is not so low that we should completely ignore it. One cannot "plausibly" assert that they consider something to be plausible and implausible at the same time, yet both would imply the "possibility", unless it were deemed to be impossible, in which case, calling it "implausible" would be understating your position.
- I would consider it not to be very plausible that you will live to be 200, precisely because that would be highly unlikely, but the fact that words have a range of meaning doesn't mean they have no meaning at all, and we are not obliged to discard statements which use such terms. In the instant case, what we are discussing is speculative, but there can be a basis for having a belief about the relatively likelihood of two explanations. You can compare this to "possible" and "impossible", but one should be somewhat loathe to claim something is "impossible" without qualification, unless there is some well-grounded basis for such a belief. Fabrickator (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Definition from the OED, the principal historical dictionary of the English language, plausible: "(of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive. 'a plausible liar'" O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not a response to what I said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, that it is not a word that should be taken to mean anything technical and I find it's use in that context to be a kind of mischief. A deliberate deployment of ambiguity. I wonder how many additional man hours were justified because words such as plausible were used rather than speaking in terms of likelihoods. TarnishedPathtalk 10:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- They are synonyms. So, no I'm not mixing them up. TarnishedPathtalk 01:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- No it's not, you're mixing up the words plausible and possible. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's plausible that I might live to 200. It's exceedingly unlikely though. TarnishedPathtalk 10:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Merely saying it is "plausible" is not the same as advancing "arguments used in support of a laboratory leak". That is rather the point. Bon courage (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- See the WHO, all US intelligence agencies etc. etc. who all say lab leak is a plausible scenario. Are they all conspiracy theorists? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:CLEARLY eh? Why's it "controversial"? Is there any comparable source saying the LL arguments are anything other than conspiratorial? If not WP:YESPOV leads us to assert the knowledge. (In fact, this needs expanding from the source since the precise nature of the conspiratorial thinking has a different flavour for each constituent fallacy.) Bon courage (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hob Gadling wrote: "... when someone says something is 'plausible', we simply do not know exactly what they mean ...".
When someone says something is "plausible", we know that the person is evaluating their understanding of the situation and expressing their opinion that the statement is worthy of consideration. OTOH, if they say it is "probable" (without any modifiers), they are making an assertion that it is "more likely than not". This might be based on objective data or it might just be their own opinion. To my knowledge, WP does not have a rule prohibiting opinion, but opinion should be attributed and that should be sourced. Fabrickator (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have a watchlist, I do not need pings. And
we know
? Maybe you and somebody else, so, "we", but I do not know that, since there are obviously people who use a different meaning, as has been noted in this thread. Can we stop this IDHT stuff? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)- Hmmmm... I am not sure why my edit caused you to receive a ping.
- I don't think that plausible is unique in terms of having multiple meanings, but we must consider it in context.
- In this context of "we know", the meaning is that the speaker is expressing their opinion. No need (or point) to objecting to the "we know" phrasing. When someone states that something is plausible, they are expressing their opinion. Actually, more generally, when someone makes a statement, they are implicity asserting the truth of that statement, but plausibility is implicitly a judgement call.
- If some people have other understandings of the words used in this particular context, then perhaps their language skills are lacking. Perhaps the variation in usage of plausible makes this more complicated than some other terms, but the fact that some people find it challenging to understand is not a reason to reject a source that uses such wording. Fabrickator (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- When you write "Hob Gadling wrote", I get notified. Please do not get nitpicky and tell me that a ping is a different kind of notification than the one I got.
I don't think that plausible is unique
Irrelevant to the matter in question.In this context of "we know", the meaning is
Irrelevant to the matter in question. Also, a collection of excruciatingly boring platitudes.then perhaps their language skills are lacking
Yeah, only your reading can be correct, and when a source uses the word, they must mean the same as you do when you say it because a reliable source's language skills are never lacking. I think we can stop this, it's pointless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)- Here's the Wiktionary definition: Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable. Your suggestion that it should be considered synonymous with possible ... I would suggest that that's implausible. Fabrickator (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- For from a source that isn't user generated Merriam-webster, plausible:- "superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often deceptively so", or the top thesaurus result at Cambridge dictionary - possible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Here's the Wiktionary definition: Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable. Your suggestion that it should be considered synonymous with possible ... I would suggest that that's implausible. Fabrickator (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
(following text is prior discussion from 16 September 2023)
- The US intelligence agencies when releasing a summary of their intelligence recently said “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic”. There are many, many things in this universe which are "plausible", that does not make all of them remotely possible. TarnishedPathtalk 10:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- All the instances of the word "plausible" in the article which come from scientists and apply it to LL use the word in comparison: they say that an accidental lab leak is "more plausible" than an intentional one. (Jon Cohen is a science writer, not a scientist.) Are there any scientific sources that call the whole thing "plausible"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- "All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident"
- https://www.intelligence.gov/publics-daily-brief/public-s-daily-brief-articles/1089-odni-releases-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins PieLover3141592654 (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- And it goes into say, 4 think most likely it was natural 1 thinks a lab leak, and 1 is undecided, so the consensus is it was most likely natural. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- The point is they all think it's a plausible scenario i.e. not a conspiracy theory. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not really, a conspiracy theory can be plausible ("seeming reasonable") and still have no evidence supporting it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Logic fail. The point at issue is "arguments in support of LL". They are not making such arguments. We're talking about arguments like "the furin cleavage site is a tell of biOWeapOn rESearCh" or "COVID originating next to the WIV is tOo MuCH oF a COiNcIDencE!". Bon courage (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Right, this is not just about the lad leak but all the other linked stuff, (the source above for example is clear, it is not man-made or a bioweapon). Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- The point is they all think it's a plausible scenario i.e. not a conspiracy theory. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Your indenting is wrong, since you did not address my question. I asked for scientific sources. Secret services are the opposite of scientific, as they 1. work in secret and 2. have an agenda different from "find out what is likely true". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, they need a certain amount of paranoia for the job, aka, "conspiratorial thinking". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think there are grounds to tar the intelligence agencies with "conspiratorial thinking" in the same way the as the source does for proponents of the theory. Just because some point to those assessments and misstate their findings in order to justify their beliefs does not mean those assessments are necessarily a result of paranoia. But i also don't know why discussion is continuing in this section, it an obviously solid source and needs expansion in the article text. fiveby(zero) 17:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. Perhaps someone could close as this thread (like others before) is going nowhere. Bon courage (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think there are grounds to tar the intelligence agencies with "conspiratorial thinking" in the same way the as the source does for proponents of the theory. Just because some point to those assessments and misstate their findings in order to justify their beliefs does not mean those assessments are necessarily a result of paranoia. But i also don't know why discussion is continuing in this section, it an obviously solid source and needs expansion in the article text. fiveby(zero) 17:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, they need a certain amount of paranoia for the job, aka, "conspiratorial thinking". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- And it goes into say, 4 think most likely it was natural 1 thinks a lab leak, and 1 is undecided, so the consensus is it was most likely natural. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- The experts say it is, in RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- And this is all through the looking glass now. The source is just making the basic point that "arguments used in support of a laboratory leak" have the hallmarks of conspiratorial thinking. No rational source to my knowledge is using such "supporting" arguments (which is different to a statement about possibility/feasibility/plausibility). This is why the source also says (as we do) that the origin is not definitively known. Sheesh. Bon courage (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Right. People calling it "plausible" does not contradict the statement about "conspiratorial thinking". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Suggeseting that an outbreak resulted from a "lab leak" is not conspiratorial thinking, it is the common explanation for several outbreaks, such as the Taiwan and Beijing SARS outbreaks in 2003 and 2004 respectively. See https://gillesdemaneuf.medium.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-a-review-of-sars-lab-escapes-898d203d175d as well as published papers by NIH on these purported lab leaks. Fabrickator (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, AIDS and Lyme disease. Every new disease has likely been suspected by somebody of coming from a lab. It's the way people's brains work: "thing happened! Person must done it!" Also called "conspiratorial thinking". --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- There is a massive motte and bailey fallacy going on, like saying that because it's reasonable to say "alien life might exist in the universe" it follows that it's legitimate to argue "an alien shot JFK is not a conspiracy theory because scientists says aliens might exist!". The source is not talking about a theoretical premise, but actual arguments supporting concrete conspiracist narratives. Bon courage (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wow! Comparing the likelihood of a lab leak to space aliens assassinating Kennedy? Somewhere in the universe, there surely is (or has been or will be) other intelligent life. Of course, this is beyond being disprovable. But to compare the likelihood of a lab leak to an alien life form assassinating JFK, that's rather "jumping the shark", if that can be an appropriate analogy.
- So far as I am aware, the "lab leak" theory does not presume intent. Of course, there could be a bad actor ... there are misanthropes out there, some of them could be employed in vaccine engineering and have the ability to do this willfully. For that matter, this could even be a strategy to improve corporate profits for businesses in this field. But those who suggest the possibility of a lab leak aren't coming up with these "conspiracy theory-like" ideas. They're just suggesting that a lab leak is somewhat plausible. I don't understand how this can be considered to be so highly implausible when we've purportedly seen this before. Fabrickator (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe the lab leak theory is 20% likely. Maybe the aliens killed JFK is .01% likely. Still, we only cover the 80% here. Andre🚐 18:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Logic fail again. Likelihood is one thing (it is accepted there is some for LL); building an argument to "support" LL is another (the 'space aliens shot Kennedy' thing). This is the point of the source; I suggest reading it. Bon courage (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Evidence for you assessment that LL is 20% likely given that intelligence agencies have said “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic”? TarnishedPathtalk 01:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, wasn't trying to make that as an assessment, just for the sake of argument. Please don't take my statement as support for the lab leak theory. Andre🚐 01:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's good. Because given the amount of investigation that's occurred and the amount of evidence uncovered (zero) I'd put it closer to JFK/911 conspiracies being true (not the aliens bit). Not quite there but in that direction. TarnishedPathtalk 02:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- My point was that regardless of whether the lab leak theory is 20% likely or 0% likely, Wikipedia intends to describe reality on a pareto principle basis. Andre🚐 02:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've been pretty up front about this, I believe the only rational way for treating this subject is acknowledging that it's all suppositions based on gaps in evidence, which is a hallmark of conspiracy theories. There is not a single shred of evidence for the lab leak theory beyond absurdly tenuous circumstantial facts like lab workers contracting COVID at the very start of the pandemic. As if the lab workers should have been magically immune form catching communicable illnesses spreading in the city in which they lived and worked. Big powerful institutions and learned people who really should know better engaging in this absurdity doesn't make it any less of a conspiracy theory. In the same way cults don't stop being cults when they become large, conspiracy theories don't stop being conspiracy theories when a lot of people or even powerful ones believe in them. This whole idea of "lab leaks have happened before therefore this is likely" is just absurd in the extreme and is indicative of conspiratorial thinking. TarnishedPathtalk 08:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Lab leaks have happened in the past; but for something to have leaked from a lab it needs to exist in the lab in the first place. This is a point the sources makes repeatedly. There is no evidence SARS-Cov-2 was in any lab prior to the pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly. TarnishedPathtalk 09:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- So any theory that claims there was is (by its nature) a conspiracy theory and thus "characteristic of conspiratorial thinking". Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds like we're all in violent agreement. My point was that even if a lab leak is theoretically possible, we still want to treat it as a very fringe, minority viewpoint with nothing going for it but a lot of hot air and bloviating from particular quarters along political lines. And folks coming along trying to insert that into articles cited directly to house committees and stuff like that. Andre🚐 20:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- The reason the lab leak theory is not mainstream has little to do with science and more with politics and conflicted interests.
"For much of 2020, pursuing the lab leak theory was treated publicly as xenophobic, and, thanks in part to an open letter signed by 27 scientists and published in an influential medical journal in February 2020, scientifically unsound.[...]
It also became public that the open letter — whose signees wrote at the time that they “strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” — was not just signed but organized by a scientist involved in funding the kind of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that other scientists now believe could have spawned SARS-Cov-2.[1]
- According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting."
- Therefore, according to the ABC News September article, "No definitive conclusion as to COVID's origins has yet been determined by the American intelligence or international public health bodies who have probed for answers."[2] Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's the other way around. Politics is pushing to make the lab leak theory have mor legs than it really does. In scientific circles, it's generally not regarded positively. You demonstrate this by quoting news articles and political appointees, not scientists. Andre🚐 04:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- And this is all irrelevant in any case. The text being discussed is about "arguments used in support of a laboratory leak", not judgements about prior possibility. The "arguments for" that have been used have smell conspiracist (e.g. "the furin cleavage site looks like weapons design"). There is no evidence supporting LL; there is accumulating evidence in the other direction. Sources say this; Wikipedia reflects it. That editors here have their own pro-fringe take is irrelevant and disruptive (which is why so many have had to sanctioned when they insist on pressing that take). Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am going to raise a point of order. We are each attempting to advance our own position, and raise facts or make points to support our position. It is one thing to suggest that the other person's position is "pro-fringe", but keep in mind that we are still obliged to WP:AGF. Raising the spectre of sanctions is inappropriate and should be avoided. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- The point is nobody should be trying to advance their "own position". We are here to convey what the WP:BESTSOURCES say on the matter. Disruption begets sanctions, and that would be best avoided. WP:AGF has nothing to do with it, since nobody's "good faith" is in question. Bon courage (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- There is obviously evidence of a lab leak, given that the FBI and the Department of Energy have stated (although with low confidence) that it is the most likely origin. WHO director-general has called for a new inquiry, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study." The US ambassador to China called for the country to "be more honest" about Covid's origins. Whereas the Chinese Foreing Ministry stated, "The conclusions they have reached have no credibility to speak of".[3] Certainly a lot of politics is in the way.
- I have to point out as I stated before, I personally believe it is equally likely that it may have been zoonosis or a lab leak. But to me, what is evident is the extreme bias of many editors that even resort to insulting others' positions and trying to impose theirs instead of seeking consensus. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
There is obviously evidence of a lab leak
← that may be your personal view, but it's the opposite of what RS says. Airing such views while attacking other editors who are source-focused, is what's the problem. Your views about LL don't matter. Bon courage (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)- If one editor disagrees with another, then it is simply a matter of providing refutation, not a matter of saying their perspective is a problem. Per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, "Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately."
- Editors as can be seen in the history of this talk page have resorted to insulting others' positions and that is against the civility policy, it is not simply "source-focused". Ignoring the civility policy and the NPOV policy is what is the problem. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- If one editor disagrees with another, and that disagreement is based on sources and policy, then fine. If however the "disagreement" is in fact an editor POV-PUSHING unsourced fringe personal opinions like "There is obviously evidence of a lab leak" and making thoughtless contributions to a talk page, then it is a problem. What is striking about this whole meandering thread is that editors arguing against the source's knowledge have produced no relevant sourcing themselves, on the precise topic at hand: the nature of arguments used in support of LL. Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- I will remind you to observe the civility policy and stop unhelpful comments, misleading accusations, and rudeness. I included a reliable source to back up my comment. If you think I misinterpret it you are welcome to refute it in a collegial manner without violating the civility policy. I will assume you are having a bad day. I hope things get better. But my days are not that good either. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- If one editor disagrees with another, and that disagreement is based on sources and policy, then fine. If however the "disagreement" is in fact an editor POV-PUSHING unsourced fringe personal opinions like "There is obviously evidence of a lab leak" and making thoughtless contributions to a talk page, then it is a problem. What is striking about this whole meandering thread is that editors arguing against the source's knowledge have produced no relevant sourcing themselves, on the precise topic at hand: the nature of arguments used in support of LL. Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am going to raise a point of order. We are each attempting to advance our own position, and raise facts or make points to support our position. It is one thing to suggest that the other person's position is "pro-fringe", but keep in mind that we are still obliged to WP:AGF. Raising the spectre of sanctions is inappropriate and should be avoided. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- And this is all irrelevant in any case. The text being discussed is about "arguments used in support of a laboratory leak", not judgements about prior possibility. The "arguments for" that have been used have smell conspiracist (e.g. "the furin cleavage site looks like weapons design"). There is no evidence supporting LL; there is accumulating evidence in the other direction. Sources say this; Wikipedia reflects it. That editors here have their own pro-fringe take is irrelevant and disruptive (which is why so many have had to sanctioned when they insist on pressing that take). Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's the other way around. Politics is pushing to make the lab leak theory have mor legs than it really does. In scientific circles, it's generally not regarded positively. You demonstrate this by quoting news articles and political appointees, not scientists. Andre🚐 04:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds like we're all in violent agreement. My point was that even if a lab leak is theoretically possible, we still want to treat it as a very fringe, minority viewpoint with nothing going for it but a lot of hot air and bloviating from particular quarters along political lines. And folks coming along trying to insert that into articles cited directly to house committees and stuff like that. Andre🚐 20:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- So any theory that claims there was is (by its nature) a conspiracy theory and thus "characteristic of conspiratorial thinking". Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly. TarnishedPathtalk 09:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Lab leaks have happened in the past; but for something to have leaked from a lab it needs to exist in the lab in the first place. This is a point the sources makes repeatedly. There is no evidence SARS-Cov-2 was in any lab prior to the pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've been pretty up front about this, I believe the only rational way for treating this subject is acknowledging that it's all suppositions based on gaps in evidence, which is a hallmark of conspiracy theories. There is not a single shred of evidence for the lab leak theory beyond absurdly tenuous circumstantial facts like lab workers contracting COVID at the very start of the pandemic. As if the lab workers should have been magically immune form catching communicable illnesses spreading in the city in which they lived and worked. Big powerful institutions and learned people who really should know better engaging in this absurdity doesn't make it any less of a conspiracy theory. In the same way cults don't stop being cults when they become large, conspiracy theories don't stop being conspiracy theories when a lot of people or even powerful ones believe in them. This whole idea of "lab leaks have happened before therefore this is likely" is just absurd in the extreme and is indicative of conspiratorial thinking. TarnishedPathtalk 08:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- My point was that regardless of whether the lab leak theory is 20% likely or 0% likely, Wikipedia intends to describe reality on a pareto principle basis. Andre🚐 02:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's good. Because given the amount of investigation that's occurred and the amount of evidence uncovered (zero) I'd put it closer to JFK/911 conspiracies being true (not the aliens bit). Not quite there but in that direction. TarnishedPathtalk 02:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, wasn't trying to make that as an assessment, just for the sake of argument. Please don't take my statement as support for the lab leak theory. Andre🚐 01:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe the lab leak theory is 20% likely. Maybe the aliens killed JFK is .01% likely. Still, we only cover the 80% here. Andre🚐 18:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Suggeseting that an outbreak resulted from a "lab leak" is not conspiratorial thinking, it is the common explanation for several outbreaks, such as the Taiwan and Beijing SARS outbreaks in 2003 and 2004 respectively. See https://gillesdemaneuf.medium.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-a-review-of-sars-lab-escapes-898d203d175d as well as published papers by NIH on these purported lab leaks. Fabrickator (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Right. People calling it "plausible" does not contradict the statement about "conspiratorial thinking". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- And this is all through the looking glass now. The source is just making the basic point that "arguments used in support of a laboratory leak" have the hallmarks of conspiratorial thinking. No rational source to my knowledge is using such "supporting" arguments (which is different to a statement about possibility/feasibility/plausibility). This is why the source also says (as we do) that the origin is not definitively known. Sheesh. Bon courage (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps I misunderstand you, but I'm struggling (hard) to think of a single example of something that is plausible yet impossible.
- On the subject, the word 'plausible' is used to imply a level of believability (or appearance thereof) beyond the merely 'possible'. I've certainly never seen it used in any other fashion, and there doesn't seem much room for confusion in its usage in the DONI document. 'All agencies continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses to explain the first human infection.'
- https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/plausible-vs-possible
- https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/plausible-vs-possible
- https://allthedifferences.com/possible-and-plausible/
- https://strategiesforparents.com/plausible-vs-possible-whats-the-difference/ 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:F086:443D:3F49:9BCC (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I will just repeat myself and respectfully disagree... raising the spectre of sanctions constitutes an assertion that somebody is willfully violating the rules, which would presumably be the basis for imposing sanctions. I suggest that it's an implied threat and should therefore be avoided. Fabrickator (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Don't know where you got 'wilfully' from, not me anyway. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. That's the reality. It says so right at the top of the page. Bon courage (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Bon Courage... I have moved your comment to follow the one you were responding to. I specified "willfully", I'm hard-pressed to grasp your objection. In any case, we've had too many back-and-forths on this. You think it's okay to explicitly alert somebody to the risk of sanctions, I think this is bad form because it's an implicit accusation that they're acting in bad faith. This shows how one comment can generate a lot of noise. For now, I think we should (regarding this discussion of sanctions) agree to disagree. Fabrickator (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Logic fail again. Alerting somebody to the risk of sanctions assumes that they may have been unaware of the risk and need to be told. If you continue behaving in the same vein after that, then you are willful, and the risk increases. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Some editors alert in good faith, some editors threaten in the hopes of silencing those who don't agree with them. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Now we also have a WP:AGF fail. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Read the post again. It summarizes things that may happen. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Summarizing
things that may happen
is not what Talk pages are for. Can you please stop casting vague aspersions? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)- That's an inappropriate accusation against me. It was a reply to your comment and I mentioned that some editors alert in good faith and others don't. It was intended to showcase there are two sides in the issue that you were talking about in this talk page. The issue, not an editor in particular. Maybe I overlooked the context of the thread. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I overlooked
When I assume good faith, I conclude that you did, and that you forgot that this is not a forum where you blab about everything you can think of without any relation to improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's an inappropriate accusation against me. It was a reply to your comment and I mentioned that some editors alert in good faith and others don't. It was intended to showcase there are two sides in the issue that you were talking about in this talk page. The issue, not an editor in particular. Maybe I overlooked the context of the thread. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Summarizing
- Read the post again. It summarizes things that may happen. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Now we also have a WP:AGF fail. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Some editors alert in good faith, some editors threaten in the hopes of silencing those who don't agree with them. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Logic fail again. Alerting somebody to the risk of sanctions assumes that they may have been unaware of the risk and need to be told. If you continue behaving in the same vein after that, then you are willful, and the risk increases. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Bon Courage... I have moved your comment to follow the one you were responding to. I specified "willfully", I'm hard-pressed to grasp your objection. In any case, we've had too many back-and-forths on this. You think it's okay to explicitly alert somebody to the risk of sanctions, I think this is bad form because it's an implicit accusation that they're acting in bad faith. This shows how one comment can generate a lot of noise. For now, I think we should (regarding this discussion of sanctions) agree to disagree. Fabrickator (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Seems to me to be a well-sourced insightful bit of info from a reliable source. We have no RSes which contradict it. I haven't read more than a dozen back-and-forths deep into the above (it's quite a few, folks), but it looks like most of the controversy is POV-based, not policy-and-guideline based...— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Williams, Katie; Bertrand, Natasha; Cohen, Zachary (13 Sep 2023). "Classified report with early support for lab leak theory reemerges as focal point for lawmakers digging into Covid-19 origins". CNN. Retrieved 20 Sep 2023.
- ^ Pezenik, Sasha (13 Sep 2023). "CIA 'looking into' allegations connected to COVID-19 origins". ABC News. Retrieved 15 Sep 2023.
- ^ Matza, Max; Yong, Nicholas (1 Mar 2023). "FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely". BBC. Retrieved 21 Sep 2023.
Biden's DHHS Bans US Funding of Wuhan Lab
The Department of Health and Human Services has banned US funding of the Wuhan Lab. Why would these virulent right-wing lunatics do this? Anyhow, this should probably be included in the lede. https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/hhs-bars-wuhan-institute-of-virology-from-receiving-us-funds-for-next-10-years/ --2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:6927:26B8:106C:43F6 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- The NY Post is not a reliable source on wikipedia. I see no reason why this should be included in the lead. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Utter rubbish. TarnishedPathtalk 02:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- The cited documentation seems legitimate: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Debartment.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-issues-statement-after-wuhan-institute-of-virology-formal-debarment/
- Let's wait and see if any news sources that have not been censored by Wikipedia begin to mention the issue as well. David A (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- We can't censor any sources, they would ignore us. We lack the power to tell any outside body what it can do. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Two terrible sources were provided. Find a legitimate source that states something that is DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Come to that does not involve wp:synthesis to draw links between this and allegations against the lab. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Irrelevant WP:SYNTH argument saying this has a connection to the LL theory. Doesn't change my previous statement. Additionally this gain of function stuff is unadulterated WP:FRINGE rubbish being pushed by the likes of Rand Paul that has no place in an encyclopedia. TarnishedPathtalk 09:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- What are you going on about? The fact that they've been doing gain of function is long established fact. Fauci even admitted it in an e-mail. Why comment if you're completely unfamiliar with the subject matter? That goes for most of the contributors to this page. You people come off as completely oblivious.
- https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/email-shows-fauci-privately-acknowledged-gain-of-function-research-at-wuhan-lab/ar-AA1dSi5R -- 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:5071:3363:A83B:8403 (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ah yes, The Daily Caller, a very reliable source. /s — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Are you saying the Daily Caller wrote the e-mail? Interesting theory. 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:B571:340:4F65:976D (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- More of Rand Paul's delusions. There was no gain-of-function research. Posting unreliable neo-nazi publications doesn't make it so. TarnishedPathtalk 03:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why is it acceptable to make enormous exaggerations by calling popular western newspapers neo-nazi publications, whereas the Chinese Communist Party, which uses several hundreds of absolutely inhumane gulags against virtually all political dissidents and three generations of all their family members, shouldn't be compared to Hitler's Germany? David A (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- We are not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why is it acceptable to make enormous exaggerations by calling popular western newspapers neo-nazi publications, whereas the Chinese Communist Party, which uses several hundreds of absolutely inhumane gulags against virtually all political dissidents and three generations of all their family members, shouldn't be compared to Hitler's Germany? David A (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ah yes, The Daily Caller, a very reliable source. /s — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- We can't censor any sources, they would ignore us. We lack the power to tell any outside body what it can do. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
[[11]], so why the hell are people using such crap sourcing? Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Department of Energy and FBI views not represented in lede
The article text currently contains the following passage (I've made the sources and article titles visible for reference):
In February 2023, The Wall Street Journal reported that the US Energy Department, based on new intelligence, had shifted its view from "undecided" to "low confidence" that the pandemic originated with a lab leak.
<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Gordon|first1=Michael R. |last2=Strobel |first2=Warren P.|title=Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a?mod=hp_lead_pos1&mod=djem10point |date=February 26, 2023|access-date=February 26, 2023|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |language=en}}</ref></nowiki>
<ref name="TheHill_DoE_Feb_2023" /><ref name="NYT_DoE_Feb2023">{{cite web|last1=Barnes |first1=Julian E. |title=Lab Leak Most Likely Caused Pandemic, Energy Dept. Says |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html |website=The New York Times |access-date=27 February 2023 |date=26 February 2023}}</ref>
In the wake of these reports, FBI Director Christopher Wray reiterated the bureau's assessment, saying that the Government of China was doing its best to thwart any investigation.
<ref name="WaPo_Wray_FBI">{{cite news|last1=Kaur |first1=Anumita |last2=Diamond |first2=Dan |title=FBI director says covid-19 'most likely' originated from lab incident |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/fbi-director-christopher-wray-wuhan-lab/ |access-date=1 March 2023 |newspaper=Washington Post |date=28 February 2023}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903 |title=FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely |access-date=5 June 2023 |work=BBC News |date=1 March 2023}}</ref>
At present the lede makes no mention at all of the fact that the U.S. Department of Energy and FBI took the view that the lab leak theory was "most likely". Wouldn't a sentence be due? These are weighty sources. Andreas JN466 18:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- The academic literature (such as review articles in virology and and epidemiology journals) disagrees that the lab leak was likely. To avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE between experts such as virologists and non experts such as nuclear scientists and police, the article generally does not give nearly as much weight to the latter. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- And in any case the state of play with the US view is that LL is over, as covered here[12] Bon courage (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Predicted before with Holmes' "siren has definitely sounded" (Australians should not be allowed sports metaphors). Most likely will never be over. In my opinion that's why the "conspiratorial thinking" paper is such a great source for content. fiveby(zero) 15:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. As it observes
Bon courage (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Like most pseudosciences, conspiracy theories are immune to contrary evidence. What sets conspiracy theories apart from pseudoscience is that they take immunity to a higher level by being actively “self-sealing.” As more evidence against the conspiracy emerges, the theory is kept alive by reinterpreting that contrary evidence as further proof of the conspiracy, creating an ever more elaborate and complicated theory.
Strands of the lab leak hypothesis exhibit these elaborate self-sealing epicycles
- Yes indeed. As it observes
- Predicted before with Holmes' "siren has definitely sounded" (Australians should not be allowed sports metaphors). Most likely will never be over. In my opinion that's why the "conspiratorial thinking" paper is such a great source for content. fiveby(zero) 15:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- The seventeen National Laboratories overseen by the US DOE are far from limited to nuclear science. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:9C4A:3502:555B:CF9D (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- And in any case the state of play with the US view is that LL is over, as covered here[12] Bon courage (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agree a summary of the intelligence agency assessments should be in the lead (including the ones that lean the other way). They feature very heavily in mainstream media reports about this topic.
- Disingenuous to call them non-expert in my opinion. Why would Biden have asked them to investigate if they were completely unqualified to do the job? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- "Some guy seems to trust their expertise. Let's trust their expertise too." That is not how expertise works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2407:7000:9BF1:4000:9C4A:3502:555B:CF9D (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:9C4A:3502:555B:CF9D (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- More recently the intelligence services released a summary of intelligence in which they admitted that “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic”, which is unsurprising given that in order for the virus to have leaked from WIV it would have to have been there in the first place and there is ZERO evidence of that ever occurring. Can people please give up on this WP:FRINGE nonsense. TarnishedPathtalk 09:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- You cannot declare the lab leak hypothesis to be WP:FRINGE four weeks after chief scientist at the WHO publicly backed a fresh mission to investigate the possibility of such a lab leak. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:16E:FC20:5427:9D00 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Fringe ideas are investigated all the time, not only by fringe advocates but also by their opponents.
- Your WP:OR is not relevant anyway, we still follow WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- There was not a skerrick of original research in my comment. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:16E:FC20:5427:9D00 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
You cannot declare
is your personal conclusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)- I was unaware that WP:OR applied to opinions expressed on a talk page rather than just edits to the body of an article.
- Has this topic been declared WP:FRINGE? If not, I expect that Tarnishedpath's talk page assertion that it is WP:FRINGE must also require reliable sourcing. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:16E:FC20:5427:9D00 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
opinions expressed on a talk page
do not belong there if they are not related toedits to the body of an article
. See WP:FORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)- And has the lab leak theory been declared WP:FRINGE?
- This is absolutely related to the contents of the article going forward. TarnishedPath has declared the lab leak theory WP:FRINGE and made a blanket request that other editors 'give up' on this 'nonsense'.
- I suggest that this is a premature request. If Sir Jeremy Farrar is not yet giving up on this nonsensical theory (whatever doubts he may have about it), then neither should Wikipedia be. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:16E:FC20:5427:9D00 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Unless there are real scientific sources that back it up, it stays fringe. It is the default position. The burden of evidence is on the LL folks. And from "some scientist wants to research it" it does not follow "it is not fringe". Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- There was not a skerrick of original research in my comment. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:16E:FC20:5427:9D00 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Calls for politically motivated investigations are meaningless. Intelligence agencies admitting that “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic” says all that needs to be said. TarnishedPathtalk 22:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've not seen any evidence at all that the head scientist at WHO is motivated by politics. Can you expand on that?
- The fact that American intelligence has no present knowledge of an incident doesn't end the conversation in any way. The report continues 'All agencies continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses to explain the first human infection.' 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:9C4A:3502:555B:CF9D (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting."
- Therefore, according to an ABC News September article, "No definitive conclusion as to COVID's origins has yet been determined by the American intelligence or international public health bodies who have probed for answers."[1]
- Regarding your dni.gov pdf, per WP:PRIMARY, Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. [...] Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- In order for SARS-CoV-2 to have leaked from WIV it would have to have been there in the first place. Do you have evidence of it being there in the first place? No? No WP:RS? Nothing? TarnishedPathtalk 05:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Again, "both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting." Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Again, something can't have occurred if the necessary preconditions weren't present and there has been zero evidence presented that is the case. Thanks. TarnishedPathtalk 12:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence apparently. It is anyone's guess as to whether there was no virus or whether there was virus in there before the pandemic. After all, the government of China doesn't have a good track record in transparency. In fact, it routinely hides wrongdoing and silences whistleblowers. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is the conspiratorial thinking our sources refer to. In science there's a concept called burden of evidence which means you start from nothing and need evidence to support propositions. There is no evidence of a lab cover-up, but there is evidence of a wet-market cover-up (which LL fans conveniently blow past).
Bon courage (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)This reversal of the normal burden of evidence manifests in other ways, such as the preference for exotic explanations connecting back to the purported conspiracy theory above banal explanations like simple coincidence, human error, or even malfeasance in service of a more mundane, genuine conspiracy. The Chinese government denied the existence of wet markets in China,[2] contrary to all available evidence (Xiao et al. 2021), but this clear attempt at misdirection has attracted considerably less attention than more exotic theories involving malfeasance in the laboratory.
- Except that it is not conspiratorial thinking but based in facts,[2] as opposed to your apparent casting aspersions about other editors. Beijing has blocked robust, long-term international field investigations and refused to allow a laboratory audit, which could bring clarity, and been reticent to share details and data around domestic research to uncover the cause.[3] I am telling you again, be mindful of the civility policy and proper ways to reach consensus. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- What you believe doesn't matter; what I believe doesn't matter. But what is in reliable source does matter. If you personally believe there is evidence of "malfeasance in the laboratory" get your evidence together and published in RS, then come back. Until then we must rely on reliable sources designating this supposition as conspiratorial thinking. Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Except that it is not conspiratorial thinking but based in facts,[2] as opposed to your apparent casting aspersions about other editors. Beijing has blocked robust, long-term international field investigations and refused to allow a laboratory audit, which could bring clarity, and been reticent to share details and data around domestic research to uncover the cause.[3] I am telling you again, be mindful of the civility policy and proper ways to reach consensus. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is the conspiratorial thinking our sources refer to. In science there's a concept called burden of evidence which means you start from nothing and need evidence to support propositions. There is no evidence of a lab cover-up, but there is evidence of a wet-market cover-up (which LL fans conveniently blow past).
- No evidence apparently. It is anyone's guess as to whether there was no virus or whether there was virus in there before the pandemic. After all, the government of China doesn't have a good track record in transparency. In fact, it routinely hides wrongdoing and silences whistleblowers. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Again, something can't have occurred if the necessary preconditions weren't present and there has been zero evidence presented that is the case. Thanks. TarnishedPathtalk 12:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- "There can't have been a murder because we haven't found the murder weapon... oh, by the way, we haven't searched the suspect's house" PieLover3141592654 (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's a seriously poor analogy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Good analogy but I would rather say that there can't be a conviction of a murder suspect without proper evidence in a trial. That doesn't mean the murder suspect didn't commit the murder. But it doesn't mean it did it either. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Again, "both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting." Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- In order for SARS-CoV-2 to have leaked from WIV it would have to have been there in the first place. Do you have evidence of it being there in the first place? No? No WP:RS? Nothing? TarnishedPathtalk 05:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- You cannot declare the lab leak hypothesis to be WP:FRINGE four weeks after chief scientist at the WHO publicly backed a fresh mission to investigate the possibility of such a lab leak. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:16E:FC20:5427:9D00 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Neither are the CIA, SIS or DGSE, why would we? Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a huge side show. The biggest reason for why the DoE and FBI are not prominently featured in the lead is that this is not the "United States of Encyclopediaca". It is the English language Wikipedia. It's meant to have a global overall 50,000ft view, not have any US-centric biases. Thrusting the input of the DoE and FBI above all other nations' agencies would be improper. And including all of them would be a coat rack. Hence, we defer to the body for such a level of detail.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. This is US-centric and doesn't belong in the lead. Andre🚐 02:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know about the DoE but the FBI is a worldwide recognized agency even by regular people. Even in Latin America people likely know what is the FBI and don't know what their local intelligence agency is called. Therefore, I think that what the FBI thinks about covid is notable in a global scale. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- This argument would make sense if the opinions of the DoE and FBI were only covered in the US press. But they've been reported around the world. A recent paper in the highly reputable BMJ ("Did covid-19 come from a lab leak in China?", BMJ 2023; 382 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p1556 Published 10 July 2023) summarises the state of the debate as follows:
the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer. [...]
Many US federal departments have conducted their own separate investigations and have come to unclear and conflicting conclusions. The Energy Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation both lean towards a laboratory leak as being most reasonable—FBI director Christopher Wray made headlines in March by saying he personally thinks a laboratory origin is more likely. Five other US intelligence agencies, however, concluded that natural transmission is more likely. The Central Intelligence Agency has abstained from making even a low confidence judgement, given the lack of evidence. [...]
What is the scientific consensus as it stands? Many virologists, epidemiologists, and other infectious disease experts still say that all available evidence points to SARS-COV-2 spilling over to humans from an animal host, most likely at a wet market in Wuhan.
- I think this would be a good model to follow. Regards, Andreas JN466 05:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- So the point (from the overall piece) is that LL fans thought this declassified material would be the 'big reveal' but it disclosed the US had absolutely nothing. We already say as much at some length. LL fans were upset. Teasing out the last, lowest-possible remaining claim that LL fans have glommed on to (this LL is not impossible) and elevating it into the lede would be undue/fringe. Bon courage (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. The US intelligence agency assessments feature prominently in RS news coverage on this topic around the world.
- To Bon Courage's point, whether or not 'LL fans' were disappointed isn't relevant. We should just put in a neutrally worded summary of what the declassified report says. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is relevant because it's covered in RS, as is how they reacted to their disappointment by pivoting to blame the US intelligence services of conspiring in cahoots with the Chinese. It's exactly the kind of secondary knowledge Wikipedia values. That BMJ feature spends more time talking about the Chinese CDC's stance, yet there is no push to cover that material. Elevating one selected sub-aspect of a sub-aspect to the lede would be classic POV. Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM O3000, Ret. (talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request for comment
Should the lede of our article on the COVID-19 lab leak theory mention that the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy announced in 2023 that they favor the lab leak theory? (For context and sources see discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Department of Energy and FBI views not represented in lede.) Andreas JN466 17:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Views
- Yes, include a mention. The most recent, MEDRS-compliant scholarly article summarising the debate that I'm aware of, published two months ago in The BMJ ("Did covid-19 come from a lab leak in China?", https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p1556 Published 10 July 2023), notes the DoE's and FBI's tentative support for the lab leak theory and mentions that the FBI director's statements "made headlines", even while noting other agencies' dissent (as should we of course ...) and describing the scientific consensus as
Many virologists, epidemiologists, and other infectious disease experts still say that all available evidence points to SARS-COV-2 spilling over to humans from an animal host, most likely at a wet market in Wuhan.
That seems in line with WP:NPOV to me – "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The DoE and FBI view may be wrong, but it's a significant view that was covered by media around the world, and a mention in the lede is due. --Andreas JN466 17:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) - No, undue (with a side of Bad RfC). While this can of course be covered in the article body, cherry picking two (out of several) US-only intelligence service views (in reductive cherry-picked summary, to boot) and elevating them to the lede is problematic, especially when RS gives as much weight to other country's views (Chinese CDC) and/or to what actual scientists/experts think, which is the sort of knowledge Wikipedia shoud emphasize. (Add: note I have added a bad RfC assessment to this as the OP has shifted the goalposts in their initial responses below. Suggest WP:RFCBEFORE might have been wise.) Bon courage (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- No agree with BC that its undue. The lead is supposed to be a summary, we already have too many cherry picked studies and whatnot there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- No – I don’t see how the concept that something is possible, but without evidence, is DUE for the lead. I also don’t understand what the FBI, a domestic intelligence organization, has to do with a lab in Wuhan China and I have no idea what the DOE has to do with this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment While this article is about the lab leak theory and should be able to mention important supporters, the views of the other U.S. agencies should also be included for balance. For length, there can be a count of in favor of LL, undecided, and in favor of non-LL origin, without naming every agency. Some of them had low/medium/high confidence. Senorangel (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No per WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Neither of those listed bodies have the required qualifications to make such statements given that they are not bodies primarily comprised of virologists and epidemiologists. Academic literature (such as review articles in virology and epidemiology journals) disagrees that the lab leak was likely. To avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE between experts such as virologists and non-experts such as nuclear scientists and police, the article generally should not give nearly as much weight to the latter. Additionally, US intelligence agencies themselves admitted in June this year that “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic”. People need to give this up, it’s a none-starter. TarnishedPathtalk 00:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes Absolutely. I am amazed that it's not already there. Extremely well sourced from obviously notable groups. Arkon (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No. As has been stated by others, the FBI and especially the U.S. Department of Energy are not the kind of entities we typically look to for medical claims. Cherry-picking these among all the various government agencies that have weighed in on the matter, in often ham-handed ways, is not informative to the reader and only contributes to WP:FALSEBALANCE. We should be foregrounding WP:MEDRS sources as much as possible here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No absolutely undue. --Masem (t) 00:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No per Generalrelative. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, this is a WP:MEDRS article and the FBI is not a WP:MEDRS source. I've seen this mistake over at Havana Syndrome and that experience makes me strongly want to avoid seeing it repeated. Loki (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- FYI there has been another RfC on this. The consensus was that MEDRS sources are only required for the strictly biomedical aspects of the topic, not the overarching COVID origin question. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't believe that is a conclusion that one can accurately draw from that RfC having reviewed it myself given the closer waffled on and did not give a succinct statement anywhere approaching what you have written. The person opening the RfC asked "Should this page be updated to unambiguously define disease and pandemic origins as a form of biomedical information?" and that was opposed. Given the nature of the close, no other inferences can be drawn. TarnishedPathtalk 11:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Refer to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Origins_of_COVID-19:_Current_consensus point number 2 for further details. TarnishedPathtalk 12:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's pretty much what I said isn't it? Anyway no point arguing, the point is,
- "there is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS." PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, that's a bit different from what you wrote. My reading is that WP:MEDRS can be preferred or required when there is any form of biomedical information which is not historical (using common sense about what historical means). TarnishedPathtalk 15:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS is a guideline,
a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply
. The issue is that the covid origins and the lab leak theory is not a purely medical subject. It involves local and international politics, investigation of possible wrongdoing, and a series of other situations besides virology, pandemics, medicine. Therefore, it goes further from the jurisdiction of just medical researchers and into the field of intelligence investigations. Keep in mind that intelligence agencies have some of the best specialized researchers working for them as well. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)- Just as I wouldn't take advice from a plumber on fixing my car's engine, we shouldn't look to police or nuclear scientist for expertise on the origins of pathogens. Virologists and epidemiologists are the appropriate professionals to consult. TarnishedPathtalk 00:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- As I stated, Keep in mind that intelligence agencies have some of the best specialized researchers working for them as well. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the FBI is a domestic intelligence organization. I don't quite understand what anyone thinks it has to do with a research lab in Wuhan. Regards, TarnishedPathtalk 05:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- There is zero evidence that any intelligence agency "researchers" did anything; this is just editor fantasy. As explained in the article, the 'low confidence' qualification from these agencies likely means that they have sources that told them "psst - there was a lab leak in Wuhan" - but that they think those sources are a bit shit. Bon courage (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think what you just did is called projection. I mean you first are talking about "editor fantasy" (which would be more accurately refer to editor expectation of proper investigations of a health concern of global proportions). Then you come up with your own speculative fantasy about the FBI making a statement as a result of sources that "are a bit sh*t". Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Err, I think what you just did is make a inept personal attack, because you hadn't read the sources, which explain that the "low-confidence" assessment of a lab leak is assigned because a source's credibility is “questionable”, “poorly corroborated” or if there are “significant concerns” with the source (aka "a bit shit"). OTOH there is zero evidence in any source that any intelligence agency has done any scientific research on this, so yeah, that's a fantasy from the LL stans. Bon courage (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think what you just did is called projection. I mean you first are talking about "editor fantasy" (which would be more accurately refer to editor expectation of proper investigations of a health concern of global proportions). Then you come up with your own speculative fantasy about the FBI making a statement as a result of sources that "are a bit sh*t". Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Due to the challenges posed by a biological threat, an effective response calls for a high level of cooperation between [law enforcement and public health].
[13] Thinker78 (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)- I'll take your word that the page at the other end of that link has a sentence that has those words, because your government is seemingly concerned about allowing Australians access to the FBI's website. Not withstanding that, all that says is that public health authorities and local law enforcement should cooperate in order for there to be an effective response controlling the spread of a pantheon domestically presumably. Nothing more. That sentence has not demonstrated any expertise that domestic law enforcement or nuclear scientists might have in regards to biomedical labs in foreign countries, particularly ones which are in countries which are competitors to the US and whose governments probably aren't going to easily cooperate with any investigations because of pesky issues like sovereignty. TarnishedPathtalk 06:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- The FBI might be a law enforcement agency but it has a biological threats division with experts in the field. The Department of Energy might sound like nuclear scientists but do you think nuclear scientists prepared the report? I mean you could try finding out why the Department of Energy made an investigation in the first place and what is its jurisdiction instead of "assuming" hilariously that nuclear scientists have expertise in biomedical labs. I mean, come on. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- "biological threats division with experts in the field", in the field meaning in the US. From DoE's website "The mission of the Energy Department is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions". Yep, that's totally related to biomedical labs which are in competitor nations jurisdiction. TarnishedPathtalk 07:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I now see that the DoE involvement is not clear at all and there is not much immediately clear information. I found a page that can give more clarity to the issue.
Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)The U.S. Department of Energy National Virtual Biotechnology Laboratory (NVBL) is a consortium of DOE National laboratories, each with core capabilities relevant to the threats posed by COVID-19. The NVBL is taking advantage of DOE user facilities, including light and neutron sources, nanoscale science centers, sequencing and bio-characterization facilities, and high performance computer facilities, to address key challenges in responding to the COVID-19 threat.[4]
- A good idea as far as energy security goes, which leads into their mission. Again that speaks to the US's domestic needs in my reading because the COVID-19 threat is as much domestic as it is international. From the same page there is "Epidemiological and logistics support: Proven capabilities based on data analytics, artificial intelligence, and other decision tools have previously supported many national emergencies including oil spills, hurricanes, DOD supply chains and epidemiology. These capabilities have been deployed for government agencies, such as DOE, FEMA, and DOD. Such tools can yield information for health care providers and government groups on modeling disease spread, collecting/analyzing information and data from open sources world-wide, and providing tools for real-time decision making, risk analysis and prioritization for patient care and supply chain logistics." which is easy to imagine how that has international application in support of the US's neighbours during times of crisis, but investigations of biomedical labs in competitor countries? Sorry you don't have me there. TarnishedPathtalk 10:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I now see that the DoE involvement is not clear at all and there is not much immediately clear information. I found a page that can give more clarity to the issue.
- "biological threats division with experts in the field", in the field meaning in the US. From DoE's website "The mission of the Energy Department is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions". Yep, that's totally related to biomedical labs which are in competitor nations jurisdiction. TarnishedPathtalk 07:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- The FBI might be a law enforcement agency but it has a biological threats division with experts in the field. The Department of Energy might sound like nuclear scientists but do you think nuclear scientists prepared the report? I mean you could try finding out why the Department of Energy made an investigation in the first place and what is its jurisdiction instead of "assuming" hilariously that nuclear scientists have expertise in biomedical labs. I mean, come on. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'll take your word that the page at the other end of that link has a sentence that has those words, because your government is seemingly concerned about allowing Australians access to the FBI's website. Not withstanding that, all that says is that public health authorities and local law enforcement should cooperate in order for there to be an effective response controlling the spread of a pantheon domestically presumably. Nothing more. That sentence has not demonstrated any expertise that domestic law enforcement or nuclear scientists might have in regards to biomedical labs in foreign countries, particularly ones which are in countries which are competitors to the US and whose governments probably aren't going to easily cooperate with any investigations because of pesky issues like sovereignty. TarnishedPathtalk 06:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- There is zero evidence that any intelligence agency "researchers" did anything; this is just editor fantasy. As explained in the article, the 'low confidence' qualification from these agencies likely means that they have sources that told them "psst - there was a lab leak in Wuhan" - but that they think those sources are a bit shit. Bon courage (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the FBI is a domestic intelligence organization. I don't quite understand what anyone thinks it has to do with a research lab in Wuhan. Regards, TarnishedPathtalk 05:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- As I stated, Keep in mind that intelligence agencies have some of the best specialized researchers working for them as well. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Just as I wouldn't take advice from a plumber on fixing my car's engine, we shouldn't look to police or nuclear scientist for expertise on the origins of pathogens. Virologists and epidemiologists are the appropriate professionals to consult. TarnishedPathtalk 00:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS is a guideline,
- No, that's a bit different from what you wrote. My reading is that WP:MEDRS can be preferred or required when there is any form of biomedical information which is not historical (using common sense about what historical means). TarnishedPathtalk 15:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- FYI there has been another RfC on this. The consensus was that MEDRS sources are only required for the strictly biomedical aspects of the topic, not the overarching COVID origin question. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No. Of the agencies surveyed, this wasn't even a majority opinion. Trying to cherry pick this into the lead, when we have extremely good scientific sources saying a lab leak is "highly unlikely", "extremely unlikely", "massive online speculations", "speculations, rumours, and conspiracy theories", "not evidence-based", and "opinion-based narratives", is WP:FALSEBALANCE. A level 5 heading with 3 paragraphs (COVID-19 lab leak theory#Intelligence agencies) is plenty of weight for this without amplifying it further. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: I get the idea of "not amplifying this further", but surely that ship has sailed. The FBI "endorsement" of the lab leak theory made headlines around the world. It was reported globally by all major papers and national broadcasters (we are citing the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC and Washington Post for this content in the article body). It is already "amplified" as much as can be. Instead, by choosing to stay silent on it in the lead you are giving up an opportunity to put the DoE and FBI view into perspective, e.g. by pointing out that it is a "low confidence" "leaning that way" guess rather than an actual endorsement based on demonstrated scientific fact, or by pointing out that it is a minority opinion even among intelligence agencies. Those are lost opportunities. Lastly, the absence of any mention of this in the lead of this Wikipedia article is fuelling its own conspiracy theories out there "in the wild" as we speak. So I see little effective upsides and significant downsides of the status quo. Andreas JN466 09:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- With all due respect, we should not write our articles based on guesses of how it will affect the real world. (Frankly, I think the current lead does this same mistake the other way; it reads way too defensive to me as it currently stands.)
- We have, frankly, no idea what the ultimate consequences will be of any particular thing we write, and it's not our purpose here to try to predict that. Our purpose is to write the best encyclopedia we can. Loki (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: I get the idea of "not amplifying this further", but surely that ship has sailed. The FBI "endorsement" of the lab leak theory made headlines around the world. It was reported globally by all major papers and national broadcasters (we are citing the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC and Washington Post for this content in the article body). It is already "amplified" as much as can be. Instead, by choosing to stay silent on it in the lead you are giving up an opportunity to put the DoE and FBI view into perspective, e.g. by pointing out that it is a "low confidence" "leaning that way" guess rather than an actual endorsement based on demonstrated scientific fact, or by pointing out that it is a minority opinion even among intelligence agencies. Those are lost opportunities. Lastly, the absence of any mention of this in the lead of this Wikipedia article is fuelling its own conspiracy theories out there "in the wild" as we speak. So I see little effective upsides and significant downsides of the status quo. Andreas JN466 09:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot)Yes. While a minority opinion, they did contribute to the theory's credibility in the eyes of those who believed it, making it quite important for this topic - Though it could be phrased differently rather than just a simple mention. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. Their original dismissal of the theory logically altered the perception of it, and now their backtracking must also be significant.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The two arguments above seem to be based not on actual encyclopedic relevance, and instead on using the article for advocacy to give the theory itself a "fair shake". Googleguy007 (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure why you would accuse me of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS - I dont have a dog in this race. Perhaps throw accusations a bit more sparingly, would be appreciated. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The two arguments above seem to be based not on actual encyclopedic relevance, and instead on using the article for advocacy to give the theory itself a "fair shake". Googleguy007 (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, per WP:UNDUE, as explained by Bon courage and Generalrelative. NightHeron (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No. Inclusion in the lede would be false balance. Loki makes a good point that we need to be very careful about how we incorporate government viewpoints into articles that fall under WP:MEDRS. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. We should include a comment on the US intelligence agency assessments in the lede (all of them, not just the ones favouring lab leak). IA assessments feature very heavily in news coverage on this topic around the world. We shouldn't blind ourselves to what is being said about this topic in mainstream RSes. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Noundue for the lede. It is a summary of our article, not a leader. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No undue for the lede. The only organization whos support I would consider relevant enough for the lede would be CDC or the HHS. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would want stronger than that. TarnishedPathtalk 13:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Strong yes, and also mention that the CCP has actively done everything in its power to be as uncollaborative with international investigations as possible by surgically wiping the Wuhan laboratory clean of all potential evidence before any inspections were allowed very long after the fact. David A (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have reliable sources for that claim? Googleguy007 (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Noundue for the lede. Beyond what other editors have already stated I don't think the mention of what any US government agency says is due in the lede. This is related to a global event, and the varying political winds in the US don't change any of the underlying facts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No Neither the US government nor any other government should dictate how facts are presented in a science topic. This article has a bit of an identity crisis-- on the one hand, it covers conspiracy theories and political theater. On the other hand, it covers empirical data (or lack thereof) and scientific scholarship. Since science and scholarship are given more weight in wikipedia's policy, I favor presenting this lede from the perspective of science. Otherwise, I would only support presenting this from the perspective of government if the title is changed to reflect that perspective. For example, Covid-19 lab leak theory (politics). The void century 22:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Uhoh, you're opening a can of worms there by daring to mention the actual problem: this page shouldn't exist as is. What it is, is an article about conspiracy theories, with one aspect of COVID-19 origin#Investigations strategically spliced in to make it all seem more respectable than it actually is. Bon courage (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW no/bad RFC per most above. Andre🚐 22:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes as a significant/noteworthy development. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
- For the avoidance of doubt, any mention of the DoE and FBI views in the lead should be accompanied by a statement that five other US intelligence agencies do not agree with them, favouring natural transmission instead. I would not advocate including only the FBI and DoE views in the lede. --Andreas JN466 17:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- But you'd keep China out? Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, Chinese views should be represented as well in the lede. That's just as much part of NPOV. Andreas JN466 17:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Do you want to junk this RfC and start again with something that actually proposes a solid end result? Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- No – we can't write an entire lede by RfC, but we can discuss whether mention of a particular item is due or not. Mentioning a "resurgence" of the lab leak theory in 2021 in the lede but not mentioning events of this year seems suboptimal. Basically, the lede currently stops in 2022. Andreas JN466 17:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Andreas, this is a WP:SNOW. Do you agree to withdraw this? TarnishedPathtalk 01:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, just let it run so we get wider community input here, beyond the regulars. To those saying this is a MEDRS issue, note that The BMJ covers intelligence agency views in its recent (July 2023) summary, both those in favour and those against the theory. As for three paragraphs in the article body being "enough weight", my feeling is that if we have three paragraphs about this in the article body, we should have a sentence summarising those three paragraphs in the lede. Andreas JN466 04:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Um no, WP:FALSEBALANCE. TarnishedPathtalk 04:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:LEDE.
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
If NPOV requires us to have three (extremely well sourced ...) paragraphs on the varying views of intelligence agencies in the article body, then it also requires us to include a summary of that controversy, however brief, in the lead section. Andreas JN466 05:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)- @Jayen466 no, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE say otherwise. You should read the room and withdraw this RfC, the votes keep piling in against you. TarnishedPathtalk 07:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- We have even more material on other aspects (e.g. furin cleavage) that doesn't make it to the lede. Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- What, with that level of global mainstream coverage? Andreas JN466 13:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly, because we adhere to WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE. TarnishedPathtalk 13:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:LEDE.
- Um no, WP:FALSEBALANCE. TarnishedPathtalk 04:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, just let it run so we get wider community input here, beyond the regulars. To those saying this is a MEDRS issue, note that The BMJ covers intelligence agency views in its recent (July 2023) summary, both those in favour and those against the theory. As for three paragraphs in the article body being "enough weight", my feeling is that if we have three paragraphs about this in the article body, we should have a sentence summarising those three paragraphs in the lede. Andreas JN466 04:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Andreas, this is a WP:SNOW. Do you agree to withdraw this? TarnishedPathtalk 01:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No – we can't write an entire lede by RfC, but we can discuss whether mention of a particular item is due or not. Mentioning a "resurgence" of the lab leak theory in 2021 in the lede but not mentioning events of this year seems suboptimal. Basically, the lede currently stops in 2022. Andreas JN466 17:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Do you want to junk this RfC and start again with something that actually proposes a solid end result? Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, Chinese views should be represented as well in the lede. That's just as much part of NPOV. Andreas JN466 17:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- But you'd keep China out? Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- America was not the only nation affected, not was it the only nation whose agencies looked into this, why does it get prominence? Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Because it got worldwide coverage – including the latest MEDRS like The BMJ ("Did covid-19 come from a lab leak in China?", BMJ 2023; 382 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p1556 10 July 2023), the BBC, German national broadcasters, Italian national broadcasters, broadsheets in South America, Australia, India, China, Indonesia, etc. Pretending that this was not a substantial controversy that deserves mention is likely to fan rather than reduce conspiracy theories in my view. --Andreas JN466 11:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Read wp:lede. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, a substantial part of the article is presently devoted to intelligence agencies' views. The coverage takes up three paragraphs, in their own subsection. Given that the lead section should summarise the article, including any prominent controversies, it's fully in line with WP:LEDE to provide a summary of this content in the lead section. (In fact I just quoted WP:LEDE to that effect myself earlier today, see quoted text in green 05:32 UTC above.) Andreas JN466 13:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but not just the FBI and DOE views, thus putting only those in the lede violates wp:npov. Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- As I have said quite clearly several times, I do not advocate including only the views of the DoE and FBI. I have said I advocate mentioning the views of the DoE and the FBI and those of the other U.S. agencies taking the opposite view (which are in the majority) or not taking any view. Andreas JN466 13:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- That is not what the edit request says. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- That is because a neutral summary of the article content would include the DoE and FBI POVs in some form, even if just to say that U.S. intelligence agencies are split on the issue. Right now, that is the conspicuous lacuna in the lead section. Andreas JN466 13:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No its not, I am unsure that saying something like "intelligence agencies have disagreed on the likelihood of the lab leak theory" adds anything whatsoever to it. It tells us nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- That is because a neutral summary of the article content would include the DoE and FBI POVs in some form, even if just to say that U.S. intelligence agencies are split on the issue. Right now, that is the conspicuous lacuna in the lead section. Andreas JN466 13:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- That is not what the edit request says. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- As I have said quite clearly several times, I do not advocate including only the views of the DoE and FBI. I have said I advocate mentioning the views of the DoE and the FBI and those of the other U.S. agencies taking the opposite view (which are in the majority) or not taking any view. Andreas JN466 13:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Again, no per WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:UNDUE. You really should take note of experienced editors above. TarnishedPathtalk 13:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but not just the FBI and DOE views, thus putting only those in the lede violates wp:npov. Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, a substantial part of the article is presently devoted to intelligence agencies' views. The coverage takes up three paragraphs, in their own subsection. Given that the lead section should summarise the article, including any prominent controversies, it's fully in line with WP:LEDE to provide a summary of this content in the lead section. (In fact I just quoted WP:LEDE to that effect myself earlier today, see quoted text in green 05:32 UTC above.) Andreas JN466 13:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- That BMJ piece is not MEDRS; it's a feature (editorial). It's not a bad source, but peer-reviewed scholarship, academic textbooks etc. carry more weight than journalism. We already give the payload of what US intelligence found anyway (no evidence of anything). Bon courage (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Lots of things got lots of coverage (Furin cleavage e.g.). But you can't have everything in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Read wp:lede. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
An RFC is a request for comments on an edit, (as it is worded in the RFC request) it is not a general discussion about how to improve the article. We can only judge the request as asked, if it is wrong, poorly worded, mistaken or altered this should be closed and a new one launched. If the OP did not intend to only mention the FBI and DOE, they should themselves accept their requested edit is flawed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Asking whether the lead "should mention X" (the question people are asked to comment on) is not the same as asking whether it should "mention nothing but X" (not the question people are asked to comment on). In fact, several respondents (myself included) have very clearly stated that they are in favor of a mention as long as the opposing views are covered as well. I am sure whoever steps up to close this in due course will be able to read consensus accordingly. Andreas JN466 14:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- and the overwhelming majority have stated NO, NO, NO, over and over. Yet you keep trying to WP:BLUDGEON this debate. TarnishedPathtalk 15:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair, Andreas is not asking an unreasonable question (unlike some on this page) and I can appreciate where it comes from, but I happen to disagree about where the weight lies for this. Quite apart from anything else it's difficult to summarize what the US positions are since this 'low confidence' qualifier seems critical (as we mention in the article) - seemingly meaning that a couple of agencies have sources which have told them there's been a lab leak, but they don't rate those sources as very trustworthy. Unpacking all this would be tricky without giving the misleading impression it is some kind of 5-2 "vote" in the US intel. community. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sure it would be tricky but in my view it's worth the effort. As I just mentioned to Novem Linguae above, the status quo has significant downsides. Most people only read the lead section. By not saying anything about this we are also giving up the opportunity of, well, saying something about it. Andreas JN466 09:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair, Andreas is not asking an unreasonable question (unlike some on this page) and I can appreciate where it comes from, but I happen to disagree about where the weight lies for this. Quite apart from anything else it's difficult to summarize what the US positions are since this 'low confidence' qualifier seems critical (as we mention in the article) - seemingly meaning that a couple of agencies have sources which have told them there's been a lab leak, but they don't rate those sources as very trustworthy. Unpacking all this would be tricky without giving the misleading impression it is some kind of 5-2 "vote" in the US intel. community. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- and the overwhelming majority have stated NO, NO, NO, over and over. Yet you keep trying to WP:BLUDGEON this debate. TarnishedPathtalk 15:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Remember in an RFC why a person votes is more important that how they vote, let the closer see all the arguments in a person's vote, let them judge its relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Pezenik, Sasha (13 Sep 2023). "CIA 'looking into' allegations connected to COVID-19 origins". ABC News. Retrieved 15 Sep 2023.
- ^ Bristow, Michael (18 Nov 2022). "China repression: The families who have left loved ones behind". BBC. Retrieved 28 Sep 2023.
- ^ McCarthy, Simone (3 Mar 2023). "US agency assessment backing Covid lab leak theory raises more questions than answers – and backlash from China". CNN. Retrieved 28 Sep 2023.
- ^ https://science.osti.gov/nvbl National Virtual Biotechnology Laboratory (NVBL)
First paragraph
The first paragraph seems to be written purely to influence the reader that the lab leak theory has no credibility. It has no details about lab work that was taking place. Or that the intermediate host could be a lab animal. 2600:8804:6600:4:B0A0:B425:2586:AB8A (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia follows reliable sources? Bon courage (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's because it doesn't. For the lab leak to have occurred SARS-CoV-2 would have to have been there in the first place and there is zero evidence of that ever being the case. Particular politicians, who engage in deranged conspiracies, jumping up and down about gain of function and then getting their simps in various bureaucracies to go along with it because of funding does not make it so. TarnishedPathtalk 00:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Most ancestral genome found in presence of cell line DNA used for synthetic virus production
A preprint written by highly renowned scientists found the thus far most ancestral SARS-CoV-2 genome in a sample which contained also DNA from Vero cell lines, which the Wuhan Institute of Virology planned to use and used in the past to make synthetic viruses (https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1330800/v1). Sequencing took place a Sangon Biotech, a company mentioned in the DEFUSE proposal in which virologists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology planned to conduct experiments with synthetic bat coronaviruses with added furin cleavage sites https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066966-defuse-proposal. Attempts to delete the respective files from NIH servers are documented (https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1491297779855278082). Vbruttel (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Unreliable sources, useless for Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Your comment indicates that you do not understand how the scientific reviewing process works. Preprints are uploaded to servers and then sent to journals, which, if the preprint concerns virology, will send it to usually 3 anonymous virologists for reviewing. Any of them can prevent a preprint, which in this case suggests that virologists could be responsible for a pandemic that killed 26 million, from being published, and do so completely anonymously. I know from personal experience that the publication of preprints can be prevented by journals (also dependent on chinese scientists and money) or reviewers without any specific reasons for very long times. There is evidence that virologists such as Kristian Andersen planned to screen (=censor) bioRxiv for preprints suggesting SARS2 came from a lab. I have linked a statement from Prof. Jesse Bloom in which he explicitely describes attempts of censoring this preprint.
- Likewise, the Wikipedia article on VW cheat devices accepts hundreds of sources that have not been approved by three anonymous VW engineers. This page accepts many peer-reviewed articles which are now proven to be dishonest (such as the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, from which all authors privately stated that a lab accident is plausible, highly likely ect.), and it cites virologists with proven undeclared conflicts of interest (such as Eddie Holmes, who uploaded a 99.5% SARS-CoV-2 protein identical sequence with WIV scientists in 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615898.1).
- I have clearly stated that I have no conflicts of interest regarding SARS-CoV-2 on my author page.
- Many of the articles you cite as reliable sources are written by authors who DECLARE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (have been compensated for commenting of COVID, but not by whom). Or have not provided statements on conflicts of interest, which is also true for Wikipedia editors in charge here. You are even quoting reports authored by Peter Daszak as reliable sources, although he personally applied for a grant to work in Wuhan with synthetic bat coronaviruses that are enhanced for binding to human ACE2 and have added human-specific furin cleavage sites (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066966-defuse-proposal). Meanwhile, independent sources that systematically looked into this issue such as https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COVID-19-SARS-CoV-2 are not mentioned.
- All the scientific evidence is clearly described in the preprint. I suggested to label it as a preprint, so that readers know that it has not been peer-reviewed. If you cannot provide scientifically valid counter-arguments, rejecting the inclusion of this key piece of evidence on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is censorship. Vbruttel (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- See WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- See top of this page:
- 2: There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS
- WP:RS is exactly the issue here. Large parts of the article are a violation of WP:COISOURCE :
- - citing a report headed by Peter Daszak, CEO of EcoHealth Alliance, which had received NIH funding to manipulate coronaviruses in Wuhan https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/daszak-conflict-of-interest-lancet-task-force-on-coronavirus-origins/
- - citing Eddie Holmes, who closely collaborated with the WIV... Vbruttel (talk) 08:24, 27
- Yeah, this is absolutely classic conspiracy theory talk. As the Lewandowsky[14] source says,,
(my emphasis) Bon courage (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Conspiracy theories, by contrast, not only exhibit incoherence but often directly challenge a genuine expert consensus as well. Indeed, the tenets of pseudoscience necessarily stand in conflict to actual science, and, therefore, almost invariably contradict a scientific consensus. This presents a problem for people who support a conspiracy theory or pseudoscience, because they must provide some reason to discount the position of domain experts. Experts are thus often assumed to be corrupted by financial or professional self-interest ... Conspiratorial rhetoric frequently celebrates dissent from an expert consensus as heroic, even if the dissenters have little or no scientific training ... By the same token, conspiratorial rhetoric frequently celebrates dissent from an expert consensus as heroic, even if the dissenters have little or no scientific training.
- There is no consensus that your experts are indeed experts. Come back when you've established that. 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:B571:340:4F65:976D (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- This leads nowhere.
- I (a scientist) keep providing references and specifically show how this page violates Wikipedia's policy regarding COIs and independent sources. You (anonymous) just keep coming back with the same invalidated statements (most scientists agree it was a zoonosis) and insults (conspiracy theorist...).
- The zoonosis theory is full of incoherences (no intermediate species found, why Wuhan, why in 2019, how did a PangolinCoV RBD and a human-identical FCS end up in a bat CoV from 1500 km further south...).
- The lab accident theory is coherend: WIV researchers did exactly what they planned to do in the 2018 DEFUSE proposal: collecting bat CoV samples fron S. China/Laos, adding a RBD with a high affinity for hACE and a human-identical FCS, and do all that at BSL2, where not even masks are mandated, which likely led to a scientist getting infected, like it has happened very often before. This is consistent with intelligence reports stating that FCS were added and naming Ben Hu as the first Covid patient, the Vero DNA in the most ancestral genome sample, and the high frequency of mutations in restriction sites Ben Hu had previously used for synthetic genome assembly.
- The domain experts to judge this sort of evidence are bioengineers (like me, Prof. Kinney, Prof. Kamoun), not virologists, who hardly ever use such genetic tools, and many domain experts agree that this is highly plausible, while virologists IMO have not yet provided valid counterarguments. It is well documented that they suppress papers with opposing views from being published. I do not assume experts to be corrupted, the evidence in form of their private conversations proves that they have been misleading the public. Unlike conspiracy theorists, I do not get any benefits from bringing up this topic (I rather risked my reputation and career here, like whistleblowers do). I do not celebrate dissent, quite the opposite, I consider these virological bioengineers still colleagues, and am ashamed of the damage caused they caused, and that our community didn't warn about the risks involved here earlier. Vbruttel (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment on content not users, and do not dismiss users based on your perceived better qualifications than them, they may also be a scientist for all you know (and no, they are not required to out themselves). Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Most of what you are saying is original research. Basically, little to none of what you have offered is based on reliable sources. We don't use non peer reviewed papers or opinions of editors. And attacks against experts will not convince anyone here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- 1) I am aware that this is non-peer-reviewed evidence, but as I have explained in detail above, there is strong evidence that the peer review process is dysfunctional in the covid origin question.
- We have exclusively trusted priests and bishops to investigate child abuse in the catholic church for 200 years, we all know where this led. It is highly irrational to only accept evidence approved by 3 anonymous virologists, as it would be to only ask VW engineers about cheat devices or NSA employees about the NSA spying on Americans.
- 2) Most of the references listed in this page as reliable sources are also just not reliable sources:
- - They cite news articles such as NBC, CNN
- - They ignore that we know from historic examples (Sverdlovsk leak) that reports coming only from within the suspected country are not trustworthy.
- - they are long refuted like Pekar 2022 and Worobey 2022:
- (by https://zenodo.org/record/7016143#.Y2CCWOzMKu4, https://zenodo.org/record/7005332#.Y2CAFuzMKu4, https://zenodo.org/record/7169296#.Y2B92uzMKu4 yes, I know, preprints)
- - They come from authors directly involved in research at the WIV such Holmes, see above Vbruttel (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
there is strong evidence that the peer review process is dysfunctional
Then you need to convince Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) of that. We have rules, and we will not ignore them because someone wants us to. We get this special pleading all the time, from users who think InfoWars is reliable becuase it supports their opinion and from users who think Nature (journal) is not because it does not support their favorite pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] I corrected your indentation. It looked as if you were responding to yourself.
I (a scientist)
This is not how Wikipedia works: users chest-beating on Talk pages. If it were, Talk pages would be full of posturing impostors shouting "Oook! I am a scientist! Believe what I say! Oook!". Instead, you need to use valid reasoning based on published reliable sources.absolutely classic conspiracy theory talk
is a correct judgment of your reasoning. Poisoning the well is another way of putting it.The zoonosis theory is full of incoherences
This is also not how Wikipedia works. See WP:OR. Go publish your thoughts in a scientific journal and wait until you have convinced scientists, then we may be able to use it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)- - I was not chest-beating. I tried to point out that I am scientist, have discussed the topic with many colleagues, never saw that "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis" (quite the opposit), that there are polls indicating this may be false, and that there is no evidence to support the statement. For that, I was insulted as a conspiracy theorist.
- - Your second statement is just another insult, for which you do not provide any evidence.
- - This is what I am trying to do for months now, but many journals refuse to allow our preprint to be reviewed, and the one that accepted it now cannot find any virologists who would review it as their comments would be made public.
- Your argument is non-sensical. It's like saying evidence that a religious group is covering up child abuse is invalid unless three anonymous representatives of that group have admitted doing so. Meanwhile, you constantly quote anything these people say despite proven conflicts of interest. Vbruttel (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is a good point, wikipedia is well known for being a place for groundbreaking original research, compelling anecdotal evidence, and the righting of great acaedemic wrongs. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Are we really in "I can't get my paper published - there must be a conspiracy against me!" territory? The point is, Wikipedia is really just a reflection of the best, established, mainstream sources so if something's not in that, it's of no use. If that means Wikipedia is not The Truth™, that's too bad, but it's by design. Bon courage (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- So you have not even noticed that this entire thread is not about my own paper, but about one by Csabai and Solymosi? (I only brought up my case as it shows that the reviewing process is not reliable indicator when the scandal involves those doing the reviewing).
- You censor one of the most important pieces of evidence from independent researchers that support the lab accident hypothesis, while citing a wild array of newspapers and opinion articles by scientists with proven conflicts of interest
- (Andersen, Holmes, Daszak)?
- In contrast, your behaviour in the CIA discussion also proves that you never provide arguments, but just shut down discussions as you please, or require rediculous hurdles (CIA must admit it) for evidence that does not align with your personal view. Vbruttel (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- We do not censor. If you have a problem with a source, take it to WP:RSN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is not going anywhere. You are telling us to completely ignore our policies and guidelines. No. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, I am telling you that your guidelines regarding only allowing reviewed science may not lead to an objective assessment of the situation in cases where the group doing the reviewing is the one under suspicion.
- And that your responses to criticism and refusal to assess the provided evidence remind me of the confirmation biases/einstellung effects I also had in the very first phase of this pandemic (I considered the idea that several Professors at Western Universities could privately agree something is highly likely but publish that it is wrong/ a conspiracy theory to be idiotic at best).
- I have studied the topic of this page in great detail, and to me it seems that you ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines you apply to my sources and on
- - which criteria must be met before something can be referred to as scientific concensus (most scientists agreee...)
- - when outdated references containing disproven statements should be removed
- - COIs and independent sources
- in many other sections of the article. Thus, like many media outlets, IMO this Wikipedia page is currently highly misleading (which was actually brought to my attention by several fellow scientists). This is extremely dangerous, as it is an important source also for policy makers, which are thus not incentivised to introduce IMO urgently needed changes in biosafetly regulations (like a moratorium on Gain of Function research on potential human pathogens at Biosafety Level 2 (no masks mandated), as it was done in Wuhan).
- If you are looking for IMO more objective analyses by non-virologists I reccomend the following:
- - https://michaelweissman.substack.com/p/an-inconvenient-probability?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
- -https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COVID-19-SARS-CoV-2 Vbruttel (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- We do not evaluate papers. We use secondary sources. You are not going to change our policies here. If you want to argue them, you are on the wrong page. Please read WP:IDHT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- this is just not true, see my comment below.
- e.g. refs 169, 170 and 184 link to a preprints.
- you also directly cite researchers with proven COIs such as Holmes. Vbruttel (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- These preprint refs are for historical info on how the leak theory originated. I believe the papers in links 169 and 170 were withdrawn, so they certainly are not cites for valid info. WP also has links to Mein Kampf -- not as a source of valid info, but for historical purposes.
- O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- We do not evaluate papers. We use secondary sources. You are not going to change our policies here. If you want to argue them, you are on the wrong page. Please read WP:IDHT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- You really need to stop regarding refutations of your reasoning as insults. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I also think that some editors here have systematically been rude, hostile, and sweepingly offhandedly casually dismissive towards comparatively perfectly polite, respectful, and reasonable people in this talk page, which seems like a cheat tactic to shut down any opposing viewpoints rather than trying to be openminded regarding new information and responding to all of it point by point after properly evaluating it. David A (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Vbruttel is new and doesn't know the rules. We'll forgive their incivility for a time. WP:BITE O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I also think that some editors here have systematically been rude, hostile, and sweepingly offhandedly casually dismissive towards comparatively perfectly polite, respectful, and reasonable people in this talk page, which seems like a cheat tactic to shut down any opposing viewpoints rather than trying to be openminded regarding new information and responding to all of it point by point after properly evaluating it. David A (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is absolutely classic conspiracy theory talk. As the Lewandowsky[14] source says,,
- See WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Preprints and Xwitter are self-published sources and may not be used. WP:SPS. As an encyclopedia, our job is to summarize reliable sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Your paper first needs to find a publisher out there before it can be used here. There is no way round that. Andreas JN466 15:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have been trying to explain above that reviewed literature may not be indicative of a high quality source in a case where those doing the reviewing belong to the same group that is suspected to have caused this pandemic.
- I also have given the example of Prof. Holmes, who is cited 7 times in this page (as a reliable source, once with direct quote from newspaper article), but did not declare in any of his publications that he himself had uploaded parts of a viral genome in 2018 together with WIV scientists that are 99.5% identical to SARS-CoV-2.
- I can give you another example, reference 174. This article was accepted on the same day it was received, a time period way too short for thorough and independent review. A lab origin was declared to be a conspiracy theory in this article. In their private conversations, the authors state "we cannot rule out the possibility that it comes from a bat virus leaked out of a lab".
- Reference 184 is also a pre-print. Many others are just opinion pieces or newspaper articles.
- Based of Wiki COI, independency and WP:SPS I would estimate that more than 50% of all references would have to be removed from this page.
- Meanwhile, none of the key pieces of molecular evidence for a lab accident such as the most ancestral SARS2 genome that was found with DNA from a lab cell line, my own preprint which was discussed in newspapers all over the world, or the finding of synthetic SARS2 spike coding plasmids in 2019 patient samples are mentioned (see talk on my user page for references).
- I am new here, but to me this and the choice of words in many sentences does not indicate that the editors here are completely objective and unbiased. Is there any interest here in constructive criticism such as given above? Vbruttel (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- You keep repeating and repeating the same stuff in WP:WALLS. Then sprinkle in insults. We have responded to these. There really is no point in continuing to respond to the same stuff. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- So how does this work around here? David A seems to agree that these are valid arguments, you seem to not agree. There is a long list of truly fringe and long invalidated theories in this page, for which hardly any evidence exists, but my suggestions are just rejected although I am able to provide evidence such as sequencing files, expert opinions and articles?
- Can one editor just reject all the criticisms I listed also regarding your use of references as invalid, and that's it? Is there a vote? Vbruttel (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is at least two. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- One editor? Are you saying that 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:B571:340:4F65:976D, Bon Courage, Slatersteven, O3000, Hob Gadling, and Novem Linguae are one person? Didn’t know I was an admin. You will see an WP:RfC higher up the page. This is not a vote per se as WP is not a democracy. !votes are evaluated on their fit to WP policies and guidelines. Your arguments do not fit well, as has been explained. WP is not about truth. It is about verifiability and the policies for this are fairly strict. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- thanks for this clarification. currently, my key questions for the RfC would be:
- 1) IMO group thinking and tribalism are often observed in public scandals. Should the otherwise well-justified exclusive focus of peer-reviewed research be reconsidered in the lab leak case, where the group suspected of being responsible for a public scandal is also responsible for peer reviewing?
- 2) can evidence indicating that peer-review processes were biased/ willfully manipulated be discussed?
- 3 do you consider articles reliable sources if
- a) the majority of the authors have stated in private conversations to believe the opposit of what they have written in the article to be true/more likely?
- b) some of the authors did not disclose significant conflicts of interest (such as proven collaborations with the research group suspected to be responsible for the outbreak).
- 4) I am well connected with many renownend scientists that disagree with the notion that a zoonotic event is the most plausible origin theory. Most of them are Professors at public universities or C level scientists/CEOs at successful biotech companies. Many are domain experts with regards to some COVID origin evidence such as epidemiologists, microbiologists, bioengineers or genetists, and have published articles or preprints on the issue (DRASTIC group, Paris group). The page currently does not list many of the key pieces of evidence that we have discussed internally and on which I (and I assume many of my colleagues, this can be clarified) have based my conclusion. However, it does list extremely fringe and non-sensical theories. If you conclude that we are not allowed to list what we consider key evidence as it may not be peer reviewed, would it at least be possible clarify that our conclusions are not based on those fringe theories that you have listed, but that WP policies currently do not allow us to list them? Vbruttel (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's not an WP:RfC. You could post questions at: [15]. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is all venturing into the absurd. Elevating academic peer review as some kind of validation of truth? Clearly you have no idea what academic peer review is. Academic peer review does not double check the results of studies in any way, shape, or form, nor does it even claim to be an endorsement or validation of truth. And often times journal editors screen out studies based on the editor's political beliefs, thus there is no such thing as blind academic peer review. Having this page rely on academic peer reviewed newsletters is why it's in the backwards shape it's in and why it needs a complete overhaul. Almost all of you are very unfamiliar with academic peer review. Here's an article that offers an introduction on why academic peer review is literally nothing: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/lancet-had-to-do-one-of-the-biggest-retractions-in-modern-history-how-could-this-happen - 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:746B:BB04:DAC9:507D (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Straw man. Peer-review is not enough to make a source reliable for bio/medicine. Wikipedia is not interested in Truth™, but in reflecting accepted mainstream knowledge as published in reputable publications. Bon courage (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is all venturing into the absurd. Elevating academic peer review as some kind of validation of truth? Clearly you have no idea what academic peer review is. Academic peer review does not double check the results of studies in any way, shape, or form, nor does it even claim to be an endorsement or validation of truth. And often times journal editors screen out studies based on the editor's political beliefs, thus there is no such thing as blind academic peer review. Having this page rely on academic peer reviewed newsletters is why it's in the backwards shape it's in and why it needs a complete overhaul. Almost all of you are very unfamiliar with academic peer review. Here's an article that offers an introduction on why academic peer review is literally nothing: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/lancet-had-to-do-one-of-the-biggest-retractions-in-modern-history-how-could-this-happen - 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:746B:BB04:DAC9:507D (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's not an WP:RfC. You could post questions at: [15]. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- You keep repeating and repeating the same stuff in WP:WALLS. Then sprinkle in insults. We have responded to these. There really is no point in continuing to respond to the same stuff. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- For the Feb. 2022 discussion of this preprint see: Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_11#antartic_soil fiveby(zero) 00:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nice. The bulk of contributions to that discussion are from now blocked/banned editors mind. Bon courage (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- thanks, very helpful to see what has already been discussed. will try to figure out why these are still preprints and have not been published. Vbruttel (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- A good example of The Telegraph as a junk source for this article, and why preprints would very rarely rise to the level of inclusion. All we've got is commentary from a couple of twitter threads, though Bloom seems "interested" in the paper and Andersen strongly disagreeing with the conclusions, both seem to be saying this is a very messy contamination and difficult or impossible to interpret. But i would need someone such as Shibbolethink to tell me if my reading is correct (and he is off drilling holes in people's heads.) The process of peer review is not perfect, but arguing that here as a means of including this content will go nowhere. In the end we would need to have some commentary on these preprints which everyone could agree is trustworthy enough to ensure we aren't misleading readers, and we are very far from having that available. fiveby(zero) 15:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)