Horse Eye's Back (talk | contribs) |
Bon courage (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
||
Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
:::::::::Disagree. Watering-down wording in a way that suggests an amateurish activist group is some kind of neutral research outfit, is problematic. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC) |
:::::::::Disagree. Watering-down wording in a way that suggests an amateurish activist group is some kind of neutral research outfit, is problematic. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::: It may be problematic, but it isn't covered by WP:PROFRINGE. You need to actually know what you're linking to rather than just using the words that sound right. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
:::::::::: It may be problematic, but it isn't covered by WP:PROFRINGE. You need to actually know what you're linking to rather than just using the words that sound right. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::Ooh, going for the personal attack. Better to actually and read and grok the guideline which is exactly on point. Trying to inflate the credentials of a group by watering down criticism to favour a fringe position is what it's all about. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 19:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::The lab leak theory is mainstream science. Bon courage's continued [[WP:IDHT]] to the contrary is disruptive. [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen|talk]]) 16:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) |
::The lab leak theory is mainstream science. Bon courage's continued [[WP:IDHT]] to the contrary is disruptive. [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen|talk]]) 16:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
:Is the WP the only source about this group? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC) |
:Is the WP the only source about this group? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:11, 16 April 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
Racism associated with both wet market and lab leak hypotheses
@Vquakr reverted my edit below adding for NPOV and context that racism was associated with both hypotheses. I added the qualifier “in some quarters,” bc obviously not everyone who subscribes to either hypothesis does so for racist reasons and not everyone who is exposed to either idea becomes racist or has their racism exacerbated thereby. PLEASE read the AP article cited. It provides more than enough reliable, verifiable evidence within the meaning of Wikipedia guidelines.
The article seems to me to be substantially slanted to an anti-lab leak hypothesis POV. This is an step to ameliorate.
My edit:
As with the rival hypothesis of a wet-market origin,[1], the lab leak hypothesis has in some quarters been informed by (and has, in turn, fueled) racist and xenophobic sentiments.{{refn|name=racism and xenophobia|This has been described by numerous experts:
JustinReilly (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
- FYI I’ve reverted JustinReilly (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Vquaker gave as reason for revert: “false equivalence.” Please expand if you still take issue after reading AP article. Thank you8 JustinReilly (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Irrelevant weaselling and typos in a WP:LEDEBOMB now being edit-warred in. User warned. Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The charge of edit warring is a little much since I left the essence of the preexisting text in place, mainly just added for NPOV. Why did you not make this comment for @VQuaker when he “started it” by reverting my edit with no explanation but “false equivalence” in the summary. I read the entry on false equivalence and saw nothing apposite. Similarly, your claim in the summary of your reversion of “irrelevant weaselling,” doesn’t at all apply as far as I can see within Wikipedia’s MOS weasel definition. If it’s ad hominem that’s not good. Your criticism of Ledebombing seems to have some merit; I wasn’t aware of this guideline. I will come back with suggested changes when I have time… JustinReilly (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- MOS:WEASEL
- “Words to watch: some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded/considered, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, scientists claim, it is often said, officially, is widely regarded as, X has been described as Y ...
- Weasel wordsare words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.” JustinReilly (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- You reverted me once too, for a combined 2 reverts of my edit compared to my one revert. I feel like I (and others who don’t fit the power structure’s narrative) get picked on and held to an unequally high standard. Asking u to chill. JustinReilly (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Editors who think there's a "power structure’s narrative" are ipso facto WP:PROFRINGE and likely WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia has been blighted by such editors in this topic space, and much time has been wasted having to remove them. Please heed WP:CTOP. Bon courage (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Irrelevant weaselling and typos in a WP:LEDEBOMB now being edit-warred in. User warned. Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think JustinReilly's original edit is exactly the text that needs to stand in the article. However, the bigger issue here is continued uncivil PoV pushing. WP:BESTSOURCES have confirmed that the lab leak hypothesis is a legitimate scientific question.[5][6] Our article acknowledges gives lip service to this, but certain editors WP:DONTGETIT and continue to edit in pursuit of the goal of presenting lab leak hypotheses as primarly pseudoscientific or racist. This is disruptive and time-wasting.
- A few RSOPINION have recently commented on the politicized anti-scientific opposition to lab leak theories.[7][8] The NYT piece includes a link to the AP News one that JustinReilly sought to include. Despite the 2020 publishing date of the latter, some continued relevance is implied. It is time to acknowledge that politicized, racist strains of thought exist within multiple lines of investigation into Covid origins, without defining any of them. Attempting to suppress recognition of racist facets to the market origin hypothesis is what is in fact WP:PROFRINGE.
- The main legitimate objection here regards due weight. This is not the article on the market origin hypothesis, and I don't believe there is such an article. I started to recognize that as a problem in its own right when the rushed and politicized raccoon dog preprint came out. My thinking in the earlier "Molting" section was not broad enough. This article is being used as a clearinghouse for all origin investigation, when really that should go into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and new WP:SPINOUT articles from there. There's some restructuring that needs to place across the whole topic area. That's obviously a very long-term project.
- The AP piece is over-weighted when placed alongside the existing racism material, because the existing racism material is also placed in a way that is overweighted. That is the problem that can be addressed in the short term. Sennalen (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- 1) Those are not the BESTSOURCES. They are correspondence pieces in semi-relevant journals. 2) RSOPINION are not very useful for establishing scientific consensus. We have WP:RS/AC for that 3) These Opinion piece authors are not experts about this topic, and therefore these are not even very reliable for this, see WP:RSEDITORIAL.Agree the AP piece would be undue and overweighted if included in the lead at all. it's also not relevant to this article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Helden is the starting point in the shift in scientific consensus, Domingo is the most recent relevent review article I'm aware of. I don't know of any significant review article in 2022 or later that says lab leak hypotheses are not an area of legitimate scientific investigation. These opinion articles have parity with sources that we use to call the lab leak racist, such as Gorski. (And that may be too generous to Gorski.) Sennalen (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The article does not "call the lab leak racist". Why say false things? Bon courage (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- In the lede,
The idea has been informed by (and has, in turn, fueled) racist and xenophobic sentiments.
- In the body,
By January 2020 some lab leak proponents were promoting a narrative with conspiracist components; such narratives were often supported using "racist tropes that suggest that epidemiological, genetic, or other scientific data had been purposefully withheld or altered to obscure the origin of the virus." David Gorski refers to "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government".
Sennalen (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)- Facepalm Exactly. So not what you wrote at all. And a faithful reflection of on-point sources. To overturn that you'd need a very strong source saying something like "the lab leak idea has zero racist aspects". Good luck with that. Bon courage (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be "overturned", just de-weighted and updated in line with current sources. Sennalen (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- What recent sources are there we're missing that discuss the racist aspects of this topic? Knowledge on this aspect seems fairly stable/settled and well covered in good sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that sources are missing, they are just not being properly taken into consideration by article text that's older than the 2021 shift in public and scientific consensus. It is not enough for the article to note that such a shift took place. It must be reflected everywhere. Sennalen (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- What "shift" in the racism aspect have you got sources for? Are racists even more for it now? As the science solidifies against lableak are they becoming more desperate/vehement for example? We need sources. (Add: I notice from this[9] Nicholas Wade and the KKK are mixed up in this. Is this the kind of thing we need to update with?) Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which sources? You've indicated Domingo and Helden, but these are not very high quality sources, as Helden was not peer-reviewed. Domingo was peer-reviewed but in a journal that is not very topic-relevant (environmental science). Domingo himself is also not a virologist, ID doctor, or pathologist. He's a toxicologist, and (interestingly) the editor-in-chief of the journal where this is published. He has no training in epidemiology, contact tracing, viral sampling, biosafety, gain-of-function research, etc. his expertise is in food safety. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not buying the idea that, as a general matter, virologists are the best experts for lab leak. And definitely not buying the idea that virologists are the best sources for racism. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Not buying the idea that, as a general matter, virologists are the best experts for lab leak. And definitely not buying the idea that virologists are the best sources for racism
I agree with you, I would include a lot of other people in that category, not just virologists. But you know who I wouldn't include? Medical toxicologists. Their main purview is household poisons. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)- Best of all are sources specialising in whackjob stuff generally - and luckily we have the WP:SBM source (Gorski) as a golden one for this. If anybody knows of more such golden sources, bring them forth! Bon courage (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also not buying the idea that LL is "whackjob stuff". The FBI, for example, you might disagree with them, but they are definitely not whackjobs Adoring nanny (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, one could probably argue that J Edgar Hoover was. But your point is well-taken. It is also not very relevant to this discussion! We should focus on the task at hand: Are there sufficient sources to show that a discussion of racism with the wet market is WP:DUE inclusion for this article? Seems to me the answer is "no". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Correct. But the racism part of LL (which is most definitely 'whackjob stuff') gets lots of coverage in quality RS, so needs to be prominent. Also for WP:FRINGE topics such as this their fringe nature needs to be front and centre! Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- For non-fringe topics such as this, emphasis on fringe opinions about them gives them undue weight. Sennalen (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- This topic is governed by WP:FRINGE. If you want to reverse that, raise a query at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The fringe guideline applies to any topic or page. There is no consensus[10] that the lab leak hypothesis is a fringe theory. Sennalen (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- That RfC was not on whether this topic was fringe, effectively it was about how fringe it was (minority view or conspiracy theory). Bon courage (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The fringe guideline applies to any topic or page. There is no consensus[10] that the lab leak hypothesis is a fringe theory. Sennalen (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- This topic is governed by WP:FRINGE. If you want to reverse that, raise a query at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- For non-fringe topics such as this, emphasis on fringe opinions about them gives them undue weight. Sennalen (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Correct. But the racism part of LL (which is most definitely 'whackjob stuff') gets lots of coverage in quality RS, so needs to be prominent. Also for WP:FRINGE topics such as this their fringe nature needs to be front and centre! Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would say it is "fringe-adjacent" given the many similar theories which are patently obviously conspiracy theories e.g. that the virus was released from Fort Detrick in Maryland. As there is no consensus, there is also no consensus that it is not a fringe theory. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, one could probably argue that J Edgar Hoover was. But your point is well-taken. It is also not very relevant to this discussion! We should focus on the task at hand: Are there sufficient sources to show that a discussion of racism with the wet market is WP:DUE inclusion for this article? Seems to me the answer is "no". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- SBM is a source of last resort when sourcing about a fringe theory is so scarce that nothing else can be found to criticize it. Sennalen (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
SBM is a source of last resort when sourcing about a fringe theory is so scarce that nothing else can be found to criticize it
This appears to be your personal opinion. I would place SBM above ALL primary scientific articles and even some lower-tier secondary scientific publications. I would also place it above most news sources with maybe the exception of Snopes and Healthfeedback. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)- Of all the opinions I've heard, that's one of them. Sennalen (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I concur. Dervorguilla (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- I took a fresh look at their most recent articles, and to my surpise most of them were sober considerations of evidence, rather than the vitriolic pseudoskeptical polemics I've come to expect from the site. Some of them still were the latter, so any general assessment of the sites reliability has to take into account that they are capable of both. Sennalen (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Of all the opinions I've heard, that's one of them. Sennalen (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also not buying the idea that LL is "whackjob stuff". The FBI, for example, you might disagree with them, but they are definitely not whackjobs Adoring nanny (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I gave first and latest. Coming up with best may take some time. Sennalen (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not buying the idea that, as a general matter, virologists are the best experts for lab leak. And definitely not buying the idea that virologists are the best sources for racism. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that sources are missing, they are just not being properly taken into consideration by article text that's older than the 2021 shift in public and scientific consensus. It is not enough for the article to note that such a shift took place. It must be reflected everywhere. Sennalen (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- What recent sources are there we're missing that discuss the racist aspects of this topic? Knowledge on this aspect seems fairly stable/settled and well covered in good sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be "overturned", just de-weighted and updated in line with current sources. Sennalen (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Facepalm Exactly. So not what you wrote at all. And a faithful reflection of on-point sources. To overturn that you'd need a very strong source saying something like "the lab leak idea has zero racist aspects". Good luck with that. Bon courage (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- In the lede,
- The article does not "call the lab leak racist". Why say false things? Bon courage (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Helden is the starting point in the shift in scientific consensus, Domingo is the most recent relevent review article I'm aware of. I don't know of any significant review article in 2022 or later that says lab leak hypotheses are not an area of legitimate scientific investigation. These opinion articles have parity with sources that we use to call the lab leak racist, such as Gorski. (And that may be too generous to Gorski.) Sennalen (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- 1) Those are not the BESTSOURCES. They are correspondence pieces in semi-relevant journals. 2) RSOPINION are not very useful for establishing scientific consensus. We have WP:RS/AC for that 3) These Opinion piece authors are not experts about this topic, and therefore these are not even very reliable for this, see WP:RSEDITORIAL.Agree the AP piece would be undue and overweighted if included in the lead at all. it's also not relevant to this article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Lanzhou brucellosis lab leak
I don't agree with this revert [11] related to the Lanzhou brucellosis lab leak. The revert message says "undue/fringe", but the Washington Post is neither. Note in particular that we are sourcing our description of DRASTIC to a single article in the South China Morning Post, which is surely less notable than the WaPo. Furthermore, the brucellosis incident is covered by this academic paper[12]. On a separate note, it would be good to have the full text of the paper if it is available. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- How is this relevant? Bon courage (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The section is entitled "Prior lab leak incidents and conspiracy theories". This fits right in. Furthermore, the WaPo itself draws the connection extensively. I can't copy the entire article per WP:COPYVIO, but here is a small sample, which only begins to show just how much the article connects the two:
Adoring nanny (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)As the pandemic enters its fourth year, new details about the little-known Lanzhou incident offer a revealing glimpse into a much larger — and largely hidden — struggle with biosafety across China in late 2019, at the precise moment when both the brucellosis incident and the coronavirus outbreak were coming to light.
- so what's it got to do with the lab leak theory? are some proponents making a connection? - because your extract (and the article) doesn't. Bon courage (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Have you read the source[13]? It is throughout the article. As I said, I can't copy the whole thing. Here is another excerpt, one of very many:
Adoring nanny (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)At the Wuhan Institute of Virology, social media postings in late 2019 confirm previously reported safety lapses among lab workers conducting field research on unknown coronaviruses. Chinese scientists collected 20,000 virus samples from bats and other animals by 2019 and conducted genetic tests for hundreds of them, documents show. Social media postings show scientists working in caves filled with thousands of disease-carrying bats and sometimes handling the creatures and their excrement without gloves or other protective gear needed to prevent accidental infection.
- Yes, and it doesn't make the link but sort of leaves it in the air: since there's no evidence SCV" existed in any lab this seems like more irrelevant guesswork. Have any of the lab leak fanbois picked this up? Bon courage (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Again from the source:
And what is 'SCV"'? Adoring nanny (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)the work included creating genetically modified “chimeras” by splicing genetic material from one virus onto another for lab tests. Wuhan Institute officials did not respond to a request for comment.
- So what? No mention of SCV2 lab leaks. That may be what you read into it. It may even be what the authors are trying to hint at. But for our purposes? nah. Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Of course it's related, the post just did what a good new org should, kept the investigation and opinion separate. If this article is news about the lab leak it's probably a good source, but i don't think that is what the article should be. fiveby(zero) 13:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yup WP:NOTNEWS. It's the same reason we should not be piling stuff in about raccoon dogs. Bon courage (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Pile in this while you are at it: 1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom. Lab leaks happen. But it is wp:synth to claim without support of an RS (or even imply) that there is a culture of sloppy lab hygiene in research labs, such that a reasonable person might suppose that C19 was more likely to be the result of a lab leak than an inter-species transfer at an unhygienic "wet market" that traded in known virus reservoirs. There is no such evidence. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't quite follow that. But it's fair to say that the WaPo article is documenting a culture of sloppy lab hygiene in China, as of late 2019. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Of course it's related, the post just did what a good new org should, kept the investigation and opinion separate. If this article is news about the lab leak it's probably a good source, but i don't think that is what the article should be. fiveby(zero) 13:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- So what? No mention of SCV2 lab leaks. That may be what you read into it. It may even be what the authors are trying to hint at. But for our purposes? nah. Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Again from the source:
- Yes, and it doesn't make the link but sort of leaves it in the air: since there's no evidence SCV" existed in any lab this seems like more irrelevant guesswork. Have any of the lab leak fanbois picked this up? Bon courage (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Have you read the source[13]? It is throughout the article. As I said, I can't copy the whole thing. Here is another excerpt, one of very many:
- so what's it got to do with the lab leak theory? are some proponents making a connection? - because your extract (and the article) doesn't. Bon courage (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The section is entitled "Prior lab leak incidents and conspiracy theories". This fits right in. Furthermore, the WaPo itself draws the connection extensively. I can't copy the entire article per WP:COPYVIO, but here is a small sample, which only begins to show just how much the article connects the two:
Another revert that describes material from the Washington Post as "fringe"
This revert[14] is not appropriate. The reverted description was paraphrased from the Washington Post. Per the WaPo,
DRASTIC, a loose confederation of data analysts and amateur sleuths who mine open-source Chinese documents for information about covid-19.
I paraphrased this as
DRASTIC, a collection of internet researchers who search Chinese documents for information about COVID-19.
The WaPo is far from WP:FRINGE. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Your edit was what I was describing as fringe, actually. We're not going to whitewash the more unsavoury side of DRASTIC, as is well-sourced and - if you have forgotten - has been discussed at some length. Bon courage (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- How can an *edit* be fringe? An edit can support a fringe viewpoint but an edit itself can't be fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well, yes: WP:PROFRINGE to be precise. Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thats not precise, what part of that very diverse section are you feeling is at issue here? Most of it appears not to apply because we have a WP:RS to work from. Actually reading through line by line none of it appears to apply here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is not about a "section". Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The full name of the section you linked with WP:PROFRINGE is "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories" now tell us what line or lines of that section you believe apply here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Bigging up DRASTIC unduly by removing any mention of their support for lab leak, again (also losing the 'amateur' description). Makes it seem more legit than it is. Bon courage (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Bigging up DRASTIC! Ok Ali G lol. Thats certainly a valid claim, it has nothing to do with PROFRINGE though... Its not PROFRINGEBYPROXY Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Disagree. Watering-down wording in a way that suggests an amateurish activist group is some kind of neutral research outfit, is problematic. Bon courage (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- It may be problematic, but it isn't covered by WP:PROFRINGE. You need to actually know what you're linking to rather than just using the words that sound right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ooh, going for the personal attack. Better to actually and read and grok the guideline which is exactly on point. Trying to inflate the credentials of a group by watering down criticism to favour a fringe position is what it's all about. Bon courage (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- It may be problematic, but it isn't covered by WP:PROFRINGE. You need to actually know what you're linking to rather than just using the words that sound right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Disagree. Watering-down wording in a way that suggests an amateurish activist group is some kind of neutral research outfit, is problematic. Bon courage (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Bigging up DRASTIC! Ok Ali G lol. Thats certainly a valid claim, it has nothing to do with PROFRINGE though... Its not PROFRINGEBYPROXY Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Bigging up DRASTIC unduly by removing any mention of their support for lab leak, again (also losing the 'amateur' description). Makes it seem more legit than it is. Bon courage (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The full name of the section you linked with WP:PROFRINGE is "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories" now tell us what line or lines of that section you believe apply here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is not about a "section". Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thats not precise, what part of that very diverse section are you feeling is at issue here? Most of it appears not to apply because we have a WP:RS to work from. Actually reading through line by line none of it appears to apply here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well, yes: WP:PROFRINGE to be precise. Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The lab leak theory is mainstream science. Bon courage's continued WP:IDHT to the contrary is disruptive. Sennalen (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- How can an *edit* be fringe? An edit can support a fringe viewpoint but an edit itself can't be fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Is the WP the only source about this group? Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- We had an entire long and drawn out RfC about this, as I recall, over at Talk:DRASTIC#RFC how should we describe them. The result over there was consensus in favor of "internet activists". I would say AN's edit also cherry picks the most flattering descriptors to portray a positive view. It does not include any of "amateur sleuths" from WaPo or "activists" or "promote lab leak theory" from our other sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- We are supposed to paraphrase. I used "internet researchers" as a paraphrase of "data analysts and amateur sleuths". I used "search Chinese documents" as a paraphrase for "mine open-source Chinese documents". I suppose one could argue that leaving off the word "amateur" slants things in one direction. But then again, leaving out "data analysts" slants things in a different direction. I don't object to substituting "activists" for "researchers", if that is the problem. The point below about "Chinese" being too narrow is well taken. I would not object to leaving that out. That would get us to something like
Adoring nanny (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)DRASTIC, a collection of internet activists who search documents for information about COVID-19.
- What's wrong with our current status quo descriptor:
DRASTIC, a collection of internet activists vociferously supporting the lab leak idea
?And/or how can we incorporate the sourcing we have for that current descriptor into your preferred one? I.e. "advocates for lab leak idea" etc. I don't think there is consensus to do this change, at least not right now. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)- As you are aware, sources prior to the WaPo were split on whether they are "supporting the lab leak idea" or "researching the origin". The current descriptor chooses "supporting the lab leak idea". But one problem with both of the above is that they are subjective. Different people can reasonably differ about the objective of someone's research. But the action of searching documents for information is factual and indisputable. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia likes knowledge, which is a bit more than facts. And "searching documents for information" is POV anyway, since of course they're not searching for any information that would undercut their beliefs. Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for that claim? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Multiple. It's why the RfC decided they be called 'activists'. Bon courage (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wonderful, please link the multiple sources which say that "they're not searching for any information that would undercut their beliefs." I think thats an important addition to make to our coverage of the issue on the page, but of course we need to source it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think the current wording is fine, and you can understand its ramifications (or not) as you will. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would actually like to propose wording which includes that, the sources please. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Check the sources currently cited in this article, and those cited at the RfC linked above. Those are probably the ones BC means. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have, I'm not finding this assertion in any of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Check the sources currently cited in this article, and those cited at the RfC linked above. Those are probably the ones BC means. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would actually like to propose wording which includes that, the sources please. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think the current wording is fine, and you can understand its ramifications (or not) as you will. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wonderful, please link the multiple sources which say that "they're not searching for any information that would undercut their beliefs." I think thats an important addition to make to our coverage of the issue on the page, but of course we need to source it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Multiple. It's why the RfC decided they be called 'activists'. Bon courage (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for that claim? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia likes knowledge, which is a bit more than facts. And "searching documents for information" is POV anyway, since of course they're not searching for any information that would undercut their beliefs. Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- As you are aware, sources prior to the WaPo were split on whether they are "supporting the lab leak idea" or "researching the origin". The current descriptor chooses "supporting the lab leak idea". But one problem with both of the above is that they are subjective. Different people can reasonably differ about the objective of someone's research. But the action of searching documents for information is factual and indisputable. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- What's wrong with our current status quo descriptor:
- We are supposed to paraphrase. I used "internet researchers" as a paraphrase of "data analysts and amateur sleuths". I used "search Chinese documents" as a paraphrase for "mine open-source Chinese documents". I suppose one could argue that leaving off the word "amateur" slants things in one direction. But then again, leaving out "data analysts" slants things in a different direction. I don't object to substituting "activists" for "researchers", if that is the problem. The point below about "Chinese" being too narrow is well taken. I would not object to leaving that out. That would get us to something like
- We had an entire long and drawn out RfC about this, as I recall, over at Talk:DRASTIC#RFC how should we describe them. The result over there was consensus in favor of "internet activists". I would say AN's edit also cherry picks the most flattering descriptors to portray a positive view. It does not include any of "amateur sleuths" from WaPo or "activists" or "promote lab leak theory" from our other sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see the WaPo source as compelling any major change to the description of DRASTIC. In particular, I would oppose "researchers who search Chinese documents for information about COVID-19", as DRASTIC has been diving into more than just Chinese documents, and their leaks related to American documents have had a major impact on the theory. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The article mentions DRASTIC, in passing, as a source of their reporting. It does not discuss DRASTIC and shouldn't be used as any kind of source about DRASTIC. You might make a case for appropriate tone in description at Talk:DRASTIC but that is probably the most that could be said. fiveby(zero) 16:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe change it to "Members of DRASTIC, a collection of internet activists"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Except that washes away the advocacy aspect. Activists for what would be the unanswered question ... Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Problem is, the section is talking about a Mine not a lab leak. So its clear they do not only advocate for that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Which is why the status quo wording works. Bon courage (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- No it does not, as it says they only look into the lad leak theory, they do not, I now can't support the current wording. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Current sourcing says "among the most aggressive advocates of the lab-leak theory" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: the copper mine thing is part of the lab leak 'theory' - that a virus there was the secret progenitor to SCV2. That's why it gets some coverage in this article. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- No it does not, as it says they only look into the lad leak theory, they do not, I now can't support the current wording. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Which is why the status quo wording works. Bon courage (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Problem is, the section is talking about a Mine not a lab leak. So its clear they do not only advocate for that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
'Vociferously'(in a loud and forceful manner) needs to go; it's not present in the sources, it's not present on the DRASTIC article, it was never mentioned in the RfC, and it's MOS:PUFFERY. And it's a red flag to our readers that the POV of this article is questionable. SmolBrane (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- it's "aggressive" in the sources. How would you paraphrase that? Bon courage (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- 'Aggressive' in *one* source. And I would probably omit this characterization entirely: MOS: "Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it." Do you think our readers benefit from this puffery? SmolBrane (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The soruces does, our article is however not using it about the lab leak, so why does it need to be mentioned? Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Err, it's not "puffery"; you might argue it's the opposite. But we don't whitewash stuff away, particularly in WP:FRINGE topic areas. Bon courage (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- 'Aggressive' in *one* source. And I would probably omit this characterization entirely: MOS: "Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it." Do you think our readers benefit from this puffery? SmolBrane (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I believe the sources say:
among the most aggressive advocates of the lab-leak theory
[15],a group of amateurs decided to sniff the lab leak theory to the ground
[16], (among others linked in the RfC above). I think vociferous support is a fair SYNTHNOTSUMMARY of "aggressive advocacy" and "sniff the lab leak theory to the ground", not to mention "members of Drastic have targeted virologists and epidemiologists who refuse to engage with the lab leak theory, and they've even falsely accused some of working for the Chinese Communist Party
" [17] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)- . . . but those aren't the only sources. As mentioned above, the WaPo says
a loose confederation of data analysts and amateur sleuths who mine open-source Chinese documents for information about covid-19
. And Vanity Fair[18] saysTheir stated objective was to solve the riddle of COVID-19’s origin.
. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)- The reliability of Eban and VF's reporting has been heavily called into question after their co-reported Intercept fiasco. I wouldn't consider that source to be very independent or balanced wrt the topic given those events. WaPo, sure, but it doesn't really address how "aggressively" they support the lab leak, does it? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- But even the New Yorker source agrees that they find things in documents.
On September 21st, DRASTIC published a startling new revelation. [goes on to describe DEFUSE]
Adoring nanny (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) - It was called into question, but they generally aquitted themselves. The kerfluffle boiled down to one Chinese translation, where experts find VF's translation to be one valid possibility out of several alternatives. The rest of their report doesn't rest on that one translation, either. Sennalen (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
they generally aquitted themselves
I would love to see your source on this statement. AFAICT, that is not the case, and it is not how we describe it in the article at all. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)- The main source is propublica itself. https://www.propublica.org/article/editors-note-a-review-of-criticisms-of-a-propublica-vanity-fair-story-on-a-covid-origins-report Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? but I don't know of any rebuttal of the rebuttal. Regardless of how one interprets "this" in "every time this has happened," the documents still show a non-routine safety review happened in November 2019. Sennalen (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- But even the New Yorker source agrees that they find things in documents.
- The reliability of Eban and VF's reporting has been heavily called into question after their co-reported Intercept fiasco. I wouldn't consider that source to be very independent or balanced wrt the topic given those events. WaPo, sure, but it doesn't really address how "aggressively" they support the lab leak, does it? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- "sniff...to the ground" is not self evidently aggressive, could be construed as "getting to the root of" or something similarly idiomatic(MOS:IDIOM). CNET("targeted virologists") has no consensus for reliability in 2021 as per the perennial source list, should be attributed at least. Yes Bon Courage sometimes puffery is negative (MOS:PUFFERY "negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much.") SmolBrane (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Puffery is never negative. That is why the words 'just as much' are used. This is basic English. Bon courage (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- . . . but those aren't the only sources. As mentioned above, the WaPo says
RfC: How should we describe DRASTIC?
How should the article introduce DRASTIC?
- A:
a collection of internet activists vociferously supporting the lab leak idea
, with the below refs to The New Yorker, The Hindu, and Nature (status quo. I will start a list of refs below shortly.) - B:
a collection of internet researchers searching documents for information about COVID-19
, with the below refs to The New Yorker, Nature, Vanity Fair, and the Washington Post. - C: Something else. Please specify.
Adoring nanny (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Survey
- Option B. The strongest source is the WaPo. This description is close to theirs. One difference is that the WaPo limits it to Chinese documents. But as USER:firefangledfeathers said, that's too narrow, so I've left it out. Furthermore, the New Yorker, The Hindu, the WaPo, and Vanity Fair all describe DRASTIC finding documents with information. I will document that under discussion. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Procedural close. We already had this RfC less than 18 months ago[19] and nothing substantial has changed. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I search the prior RfC in vain for a consensus that the WaPo source should be excluded. I similarly search it in vain for a consensus on the phrase "vociferously supporting the lab leak idea". Both were issues raised by your revert.[20] Adoring nanny (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Sources
Anyone should feel free to add to the list below. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Washington Post[21]
a loose confederation of data analysts and amateur sleuths who mine open-source Chinese documents for information about covid-19.
- The Hindu[22]
a group of amateurs decided to sniff the lab leak theory to the ground
- New Yorker[23]
@TheSeeker268 is a member of DRASTIC, or Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating covid-19, which formed on Twitter and has been among the most aggressive advocates of the lab-leak theory.
- Nature[24]
- Vanity Fair[25]
Some were cutting-edge scientists at prestigious research institutes. Others were science enthusiasts. Together, they formed a group called DRASTIC, short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19. Their stated objective was to solve the riddle of COVID-19’s origin.
Discussion
Here are descriptions, per various sources, of DRASTIC finding documents with information about the origin of COVID-19. Therefore, although the sources differ in their brief descriptors (above under "Sources"), they are united in describing various incidents of the actual discovery of documents with information related to the origin of COVID-19. My apologies for the length; I'll collapse to aid reading.
descriptions of DRASTIC finding documents
|
---|
WaPo: But perhaps the most startling find was made by an anonymous DRASTIC researcher, known on Twitter as @TheSeeker268. The Seeker, as it turns out, is a young former science teacher from Eastern India. He had begun plugging keywords into the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, a website that houses papers from 2,000 Chinese journals, and running the results through Google Translate. The Hindu: |
Adoring nanny (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)