TarnishedPath (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
→characteristic of conspiratorial thinking: Reply to bon courage, please observe the civility policy and stop the misleading accusations Tag: Reply |
||
Line 292: | Line 292: | ||
:::::::::::::::::::::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 [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] policy is what is the problem. Sincerely, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 06:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::::::::::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 [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] policy is what is the problem. Sincerely, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk: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''. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 07:20, 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''. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 07:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::::::::::::::I will remind you to observe the [[Wikipedia:Civility|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. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 04:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent|::::::::::::::::::::}} |
{{outdent|::::::::::::::::::::}} |
||
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. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 19:58, 20 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. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 19:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:47, 22 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
[8] 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)
(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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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. 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)
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)