Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Science-based medicine

There seems to be some confusion as to what representation on WP:RSP means, with material from Science-based medicine being restored in this edit with the justification that it is 'considered a reliable source'. I think not. It's entry at WP:SBM says 'non consensus' with discussion stale since 2012. It also says that it is a self-published source and that "articles written by subject-matter experts" can be reliable, which is the usual caveat for all self-published sources. But a self-published source is a far cry from a reliable source, and both of the articles being cited on this page are from David Gorski, who is not an expert on virology, or gene-editing, or Crispr, or gain-of-function research, but a surgical oncologist and more crucially, the managing editor of Science-based medicine, so it is not content from a guest expert in the slightest but the very epitome of a self-published source, with the man publishing himself, a.k.a. self-published opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Highly reputable source, esp. for nonsense like that promoted by the lableak stans (also cancer quacks, fad diets salesmen, antivaxxers etc. etc.). So a golden source for this fringe science topic, as summarised at WP:RSP. Bon courage (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, oops I was looking at Science blogs below. I need to look again, though still doesn't look great. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that would give a different impression, lol.

As the editor who reverted, I'll point out that one of the primary reasons for being considered reliable is for the purposes of WP:PARITY, and that's the reason I disagree with a wholesale removal. We should be using SBM specifically as a more reliable source for claims that more mainstream sources won't even validate by debunking. If there's a more narrow set of sources that you think don't fit into this category, I think that would be a discussion worth having. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm still surprised to see that this material is all attributed directly to David Gorski, who seems to be both author and managing editor, and that it is all written opinion-style, in the first person, with a chatty tone and embedded tweets. I mean, if a news source that you weren't familiar with looked like this material looks ([1][2]), you would have a long, hard think about its provenance. I see it got the green tick at WP:RSP for having an editorial board (is that these three?), but these pieces have all the stylings of self-published blog posts, so I'm definitely on unfamiliar ground here. It's more like what you would expect on a Wordpress feed than any kind of scientific or medical outlet. It just seems to me that there's a real disconnect between how this content looks, and how a reliable source (almost any) should look. And in fact, there doesn't seem to be any particular doubt on the page Science-based medicine that it is fundamentally a blog. So, even if it's a temporary placeholder, this must still all surely be 'better source needed' stuff in an ideal world? This page, more than most, should surely be the domain of the peer-reviewed? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really, this is the whole point of WP:PARITY. You're generally not going to get weighty dry WP:MEDRS sources to debunk nonsense. This has been repeatedly raised over the years. For any given medical nonsense, there is rarely a better RS than SBM, especially since Quackwatch is now fairly moribund, Bon courage (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Just so I understand, from a WP viewpoint, the idea of a lab leak is "nonsense", the recent article in the WSJ is of little/no importance? 76.221.134.99 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

WSJ not scientifically credible; quite the opposite. Bon courage (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem, I was under the impression it was a reliable source for reporting on the DOE decision. I was mistaken. Just trying to understand what qualifies as a reliable source and under what conditions. 76.221.134.99 (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll add to what Bon courage said above, it's not generally the best source of all types of sources. When there is peer reviewed work on the topic (or otherwise more formalized/professional critique like MIT and Berkeley did around COVID) we prefer it over SBM. But for many narrow discussions of fringe science ideas, it's the more reliable source compared to researchers making wild claims or self published books promoting ideas that aren't taken seriously. Hence the parity, we don't hold debunkers to a higher sourcing standard than the claim itself.

As some examples from the revert, there's a notable element to the theory which claims "the virus was both deliberately engineered and deliberately released". This is a claim which no reputable journal would ever touch, and if they did it would fail peer review and thus not get published. So we need to cite the existence of this notable claim to something, and SBM is one of the most reliable sources for this kind of topic. On the other hand, we have high quality source that "no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic", so we could remove the SBM citation there. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand, the lab leak theory is so wildly implausible that we would require much stronger sourcing to lend any credence to it. At this time, only conspiracy theorists and quacks support the theory. The WSJ is fine for financial news, stock market stuff, etc. It is not a good source for wild claims or fringe theories. I am still learning the ropes and need to get an account next! 76.221.134.99 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:PARITY doesn't override WP:RS, its not written as an article its written as an opinion piece. Its clearly Gorski's personal opinion, that doesn't actually change anything for us here (he's a subject matter expert so his view is due) but thats an opinion piece. It doesn't matter how reliable the source is, we treat opinion pieces as SPS. Its probably more specifically an editorial because Gorski is an editor at SBM, but again that doesn't change anything... We treat editorials the same as other opinion pieces. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As I don't understnad everything you wrote above, I am going to just take a step back and maybe observe more before editing a talk page or article. I dont totally understand all the technical information and need to study omore. 76.221.134.99 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a reply to Bakkster Man not you, its on the same level as yours not under it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Gorski's opinion as an expert on pseudoscience and conspiracy theories is relevant to understanding the expert consensus on this topic. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

For COVID-19 misinformation, certainly. Sennalen (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

and the lab leak as a borderline topic. Regardless of what we think about Gorski, if he's an expert on misinformation, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience, then his opinion is also applicable to the delineation of those topics. As would be true of anyone in that position. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally I don't think SBM articles are opinion pieces, a concept largely from news media; they are more analysis, synthesis and commentary on a topic like you'd find in review articles. So when an article says[3] that there's no good evidence that electrically earthing yourself is beneficial to health, that's not opinion, it's knowledge. Likewise with lableak being mixed up with racism. Bon courage (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I scrolled to what appeared to be the latest Covid article on their front page.[4] This doesn't look like analysis so much as ranting and raving. Fluvoxamine has been shown in multiple trials to reduce risk of hospitalization and death. This guy takes one study that finds it doesn't shorten mild outpatient courses to conclude that there is no mechanism at all and everyone taking it are crazy kooks. This is pseudoskepticism. Wikipedia doesn't need it. People argue about WSJ, but this blog is a tier further below. Sennalen (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like an argument that should be made at WP:RSN, not here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and as the SBM cites the latest research in JAMA ("the totality of evidence for fluvoxamine does not support its current use for treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19") this is more a case of up-to-date science rather than 'ranting and raving'! Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"Mild to moderate" is extremely load-bearing in that statement. Leaving out the use in severe covid is disingenuous. The ranting and raving is the pointless scatalogical asides that form the bulk of the post. Sennalen (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Opinion, analysis, and commentary all fall under opinion for WP:RS purposes: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If peer-reviewed or editorially-reviewed, as these SBM posts are, then it would no longer be primary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We would still treat it as a primary source, there is no "peer-reviewed or editorially-reviewed" exception to how we treat opinion, analysis, and commentary. Also to be clear almost all opinion, analysis, and commentary is editorially reviewed. Thats the industry standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I would overall disagree with "there is no "peer-reviewed or editorially-reviewed" exception to how we treat opinion, analysis, and commentary" and more specifically that every single word of this specific source is one of those things. If that were true, we would never employ longform journalism from Foreign Policy, The Economist etc. But we do.

I am happy to bring it to WP:RSN or here as an RFC, as needed. I think we have a marginal consensus here in favor of its inclusion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(EC) If the exception exists then present a link to it or quote it. I agree that we have marginal consensus here in favor of its inclusion, but as the attributed opinion of a subject matter expert not as a source for statements of fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

here are the statements in the article where this Gorski piece is cited:

• "There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic"
• "The SARS virus escaped at least once, and probably twice, from a high-level biocontainment laboratory in China."
• "Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as AIDS, H1N1, SARS, and the Ebola virus have been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created in or escaped from a laboratory."
• "Some claims of bioengineering focus on the presence of two sequential cytosine-guanine-guanine (CGG) codons in the virus' RNA, more precisely in the crucial furin cleavage site."
• "Further claims were promulgated by several anti-vaccine activists, such as Judy Mikovits and James Lyons-Weiler, who claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory, with Mikovits going further and stating that the virus was both deliberately engineered and deliberately released"

These are statements of fact, backed up by multiple scholarly journal articles and other high quality sources such as Snopes, The Guardian, Science, etc. The fact that Gorski also agrees with these things doesn't need to be attributed. He is never the sole source for these statements.(Edited to add two further places where gorski was used in the article.)— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(EC) I agree, if we don't use Gorski because high quality sources exist it doesn't need to be attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I said. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(EC) If something is published by multiple scholarly journal articles and other high quality sources why do we need to use the SPS? Also please stop editing your comments after they've been responded to[5], that is not allowed as it misleads the reader. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also please stop editing your comments after they've been responded to[8], that is not allowed as it misleads the reader

That's actually not what WP:TPG says. It says:

So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely. But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes.

I'll happily add ins marks to indicate when I added something a few seconds after you replied. But I will not stop editing my comments after posting. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"and this should be avoided." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes..." Take me to AN/I if you like. I think this conversation is pretty much done. You can feel free to escalate it but there is no consensus here in favor of your preferred removals. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What preferred removals? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You have stated several times you'd like to remove or attribute the Gorski source usage. That is your preferred interpretation of the policy and sources examined here. If you want to do either of these, you'll need consensus in favor of that change. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh so you meany my preferred attributions you just said something else to get a rise out of me. Just on a technical note it would actually be you who is required to obtain an explicit consensus for the inclusion of any disputed material, all the other side has to do is challenge it. The WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS are always on those arguing for using a source or a phrase not those arguing against it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

for the inclusion of any disputed material
The sources in question have been here for months (if not more than a year in some cases). it is the WP:STATUSQUO. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

During the discussion it is the status quo, it doesn't get to stay after the discussion unless that discussion closes in a consensus to keep though. Status quo is also an optional editing process, as it clearly says "Nobody can be compelled to follow the advice in this essay." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

it doesn't get to stay after the discussion unless that discussion closes in a consensus to keep though
The default of this discussion is not deletionism. The default of every discussion is "no change". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Re-read what you just wrote and then remember that the WP:BLP exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT. Attributing accepted knowledge as though it were just a point of view brings POV problems. This is kind of basic. Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

How do you know its accepted knowledge unless you have a reliable source? And if you have a reliable source why would you need to be using an editorial? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We do have reliable sources for FRINGE topics. Like WP:SBM. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We treat editorials as SPS no matter how reliable the publication is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Rubbish Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

In all topic areas too, not just the controversial ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:CCC. My assessment is that Science Based Medicine is an unreliable, polemical, pseudoskeptic self-published group blog. Any supposed expertise about fringe topics is irrelevant since this page is not about a fringe topic. Accidental lab release is a minority hypothesis in legitimate mainstream science, published in respectable peer-reviewed journals. Sennalen (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Accidental lab release is a minority hypothesis in legitimate mainstream science, published in respectable peer-reviewed journals

This is a red herring. This article discusses all versions of the lab leak theory, including minority viewpoints, FRINGE viewpoints, conspiracy theories, propaganda, etc. The SBM sources also do this. The entire point of WP:SBM as a PARITY source etc is that it helps delineate which is which.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Still waiting for that link or quote to the exemption from WP:RS you claimed existed BTW. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

RS is just a guideline (like FRINGE). NPOV is policy, Bon courage (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Quite. And WP:PARITY help determine what those reliable sources are for FRINGE topics. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where it says that editorials are not SPS for the purposes of parity on FRINGE topics. Nobody is arguing that Gorski's editorial can't be used (you can use self published pieces from subject matter experts), we're arguing about whether you need to attribute it because its an editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would we need to attribute when we have multiple RSes which say the same thing? I'm also not sold that its an SPS, you just simply started stating that as fact. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If there are multiple RSes which say the same thing then we generally only source the statement to the strongest among them. There is no point in tacking low quality sources onto the end of high quality sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:SBM explicitly states that the consensus is that (at least on the topic of fringe coverage) that SBM is not considered a SPS. I agree that RSN would be the venue for challenging that.

SBM is appropriate for many, but not all, uses. Let's hash through any there's debate on. On a quick look, I think all the uses in the 'genetic engineering' section are probably reasonable as they're the better choice for citing bad science than the bad science itself. I think the attributed xenophobia citation would remain as well, at least on source quality grounds (if there's a debate it's going to be on DUE or other grounds, I suspect). The novel virus epidemic citation might be able to be replaced if there's a better citation, but in its absence it seems reasonable to keep. The rest I think there's reason to believe could be replaced with either the source Gorski cited in his article, or just removing as one of the citations in the group. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thats a statement about their regular coverage not being self published, it obviously does not apply to editorials and opinion pieces. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

SBM is not a SPS. There was even a RfC on this back in the day. Bon courage (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Editorials and other opinion content are treated as SPS no matter who publishes them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should go to WP:RSN and see whether anyone else agrees that SBM is an SPS. Because the current consensus is that it is not one. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that SBM is a SPS. We treat editorials as SPS: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You forgot to link to show your quote is about WP:NEWSORGs, for which it is true. In other fields, it isn't. Bon courage (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is that Science-based medicine is a news organization which covers pseudoscience, conspiracies, etc no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that several actual RS consider and dismiss weapons claims, so we don't have to depend on a blog to do that. Sennalen (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Something I've noticed about the Gorski piece as well: it appears to be written in wikipedia's voice (ie as statement of fact), rather than being quoted as "According to David Gorski....". Same thing with the racism claim. That's an opinion, and a fairly controversial one. Again it should be presented as "David Gorski, writing in Science Based Medicine, claimed that the lab leak theory was fueled by racism...". This is pretty standard WP policy. Opinions are fine, if they are from a RS, but they need to be framed as just that - opinions. 2600:1012:B0CE:DC85:A576:965A:37A9:1E0E (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

We have many multiple expert sources saying this. Literally 6+ sources. It isn't just Gorski, and to state it that way would violate NPOV. see this discussion in the talk page archives — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There are not "6+" sources saying anything. There are a handful of opinion pieces, and they still need to be attributed. Again, the Gorski piece is being presented in Wikivoice, and this is not appropriate and a violation of policy. There is simply no good reason not to attribute Gorski's opinion to Gorski. 2600:1012:B0B2:6DF8:D1B:7C3E:D7E3:7FDF (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is. Actual (rather than imagined) policy: WP:YESPOV. Bon courage (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The policy you cited specifically says "avoid stating opinions as facts" and "avoid stating seriously contested opinions as facts". All of the sources you refer to are editorials or opinion pieces. This does not warrant stating the information in wikivoice. 2600:1012:B0B2:6DF8:D1B:7C3E:D7E3:7FDF (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, per this thread, even if it got a little off-track, I've removed the redundant referencing to SBM, but left it in where it is backing up other non-scholarly sources. There is still one line that concerns me, which is "No epidemic has ever been caused by the leak of a novel virus." - this is a very definite statement. I'm not particularly inclined to call WP:ECREE on this, because it may quite well be true (epidemics don't exactly abound), but it does seems like the sort of statement that should definitely be supported by a more authoritative source. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the journal that supports it. It was the Holmes et al. review article. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, per this thread, even if it got a little off-track, I've removed the redundant referencing to SBM, but left it in where it is backing up other non-scholarly sources
What makes you think the consensus here is in your favor? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That no epidemics have come from lab releases of novel viruses is a commonplace claim. SBM articles are not "opinion pieces" (except when they offer opinions, which they sometimes explicitly do). More usually, they make factual assertions in the realm of science and so must be treated as such according to policy (see WP:YESPOV). Iskandar323's removal was particularly careless and damaging because it caused WP:V issues and took the article into containing original research (e.g. the "Most scientists remain ..." claim needs the SBM source to verify it). Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"Most scientists remain ..." is already supported by a peer-reviewed review article. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

SBM is obviously not a better source than peer-reviewed material, so removing it where it duplicates peer-reviewed material is uncontroversial. How is this not the case? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a rule that says each statement must have only one source cited? I am not aware of any instances where SBM is a component of WP:OVERCITE in this article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say the references were overcite; I merely said they were redundant. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Except they weren't, as I already said. Bon courage (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If the phrase "Most scientists remain..." is solely sourced to Gorski, then I think you need to find some better sources. Jeez. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this what the many-references-in-one "consensus" ref is for? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? As whether something's fringey science or not, is precisely where WP:SBM is at its most golden as a source, per established community consensus, I am glad you now seem to realize you broke WP:V. Bon courage (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No I don't realize that - that's your claim. That particular statement is also supported by two peer-reviewed references, which you seem to be claiming do not support the statement. If this is the case, you should be removing those references as clearly misplaced, or better yet, use the "consensus" ref that I've already pointed out seems intentionally aggregated for supporting statement such as this. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

'If this is the case ...' ← you did actually read the material before making such a bold edit, right? WP:V is a core policy. Bon courage (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to hypotheticals. So is your claim correct or not, as far as you are concerned? You can't have it both ways: either you are claiming that the statement is unsupported without Gorski, in which case those other refs should go, or, your entire premise is a load of twaddle. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:V is not satisfied without Gorski, as I said. If you read the material you would know that. I'd be fine with the other refs going. Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

SBM provides a unique perspective, and carries an especially heavy weight with regards to WP:FRINGE ideas. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 07:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is great in the spur of the moment, but two if not three years on, it should really be being displace by actual peer-reviewed conclusions and review article material where possible. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

In the extremely unlikely event that, some years hence, 'review articles' consider the question of what 'most scientists' believed in this period, by all means come back with them then. Bon courage (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then what are the other sources doing supporting that statement? Do the editors on this page just dust random statements with random scholarly sources for decorative effect? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, what's the proof of "most scientists" claim? Why is a speculation in the first paragraph? 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is it "already supported"? SBM is superior to most peer-reviewed material, especially for FRINGE topics. The exception would be MEDRS sources. (It also seems very odd to be zeroing in on SBM while leaving an interview in The Conversation in place). What is going on? Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"SBM is superior to most peer-reviewed material..." - hmm, seems like a bold, if not entirely implausible claim. Unless the very edifices upon which Wikipedia stands, self-published material with no peer review is never going to be superior to peer review. There hasn't been a conversation about the conversation yet, so given how defensive editors on this page seem to be about the need to cite opinion pieces dozens of times, like I would dare to touch other sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You've said: Unless the very edifices upon which Wikipedia stands, self-published material with no peer review is never going to be superior to peer review
WP:SBM says: Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 07:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, but the 'peer-reviewed' corpus contains predatory journals, junk journals, and all primary research, all of which is generally unreliable for Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

True, but I do not believe I removed SBM leaving only predatory junk. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on the self-published part; community consensus does not mean I am not going to call a duck a duck, and great, I'm glad we can agree that it is not peer-reviewed. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Making careless bold edits which are also against consensus, and on a topic subject to discretionary sanctions, is ... courageous. Bon courage (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I took my queues from @Bakkster Man and his following thoughtful comments: "The novel virus epidemic citation might be able to be replaced if there's a better citation, but in its absence it seems reasonable to keep. The rest I think there's reason to believe could be replaced with either the source Gorski cited in his article, or just removing as one of the citations in the group." and "When there is peer reviewed work on the topic (or otherwise more formalized/professional critique like MIT and Berkeley did around COVID) we prefer it over SBM." Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see Bakkster Man making sweeping edits that break WP:V. You are responsible for the edits you make. Bon courage (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No, they just made the most substantive comments, as opposed to "SBM is awesome" hand waves, so I guess in determining consensus, I was drawn to these points. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your snide misrepresentation is noticed; The WP:V issue is 'substantive'. In general, there seems to be a growing problem on Wikipedia of editors assuming a pseudo-admin role acting as unthinking agents of what they (often wrongly) perceive to be 'consensus' rather than, as they should, working on articles with their own care and attention. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your snide misrepresentation is likewise noticed. Seriously, fuck me. If only the editors on this page devoted half as much time to editing as one-upmanship... Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's all take a WP:WALK, then come back and work through this. Pragmatically, it seems this dispute is not about whether we retain the two Gorski references. We're arguing about whether we cite them in the body of the article a total of ~5 times between them or 10. I don't think this is worth the level of vitriol.

First, I would say I'm definitely on the side that while WP:SBM is generally reliable, it's not necessarily one of our WP:BESTSOURCES. Where it is the best source, it's the exception rather than the rule. While I take Bon courage's point that many peer reviewed articles can be junk, I think the suggestion that SBM is superior to most peer-reviewed material (emphasis added) is probably overstating things (at least, outside of areas with established consensus that it's a clearly fringe topic with little to no reliable scientific study; pyramid power, healing crystals, etc).

So I am in favor of reducing our reliance on SBM, where we have alternate sources. Not because it violates PAGs to have a second citation or because it's an unreliable source, but because I believe it better matches the spirit of the RS/P consensus and reduces the level of conflict with those with a more narrow interpretation of the WP:SBM. On the latter point, I'd rather we not press the issue to the point of another RfC at WP:RSN over a topic that I don't think needs this much dispute. Again, we're not talking about no longer citing Gorski, just about using peer reviewed sources where they are suitable. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

My point is simply that peer-reviewed does not mean reliable. Most peer-reviewed sources (i.e. primary research) are unreliable in Wikipedia terms. If there are MEDRS, then great; but there often aren't for FRINGE topics in which case SBM is (yes) among the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

But half of the things that SBM is currently being cited for on this page aren't fringe; they are just routine mundane facts about topics perfectly well covered in peer-reviewed material. Such as for a statement like: "No epidemic has ever been caused by the leak of a novel virus." There is zero need for SBM's input here. This isn't a statement about a fringe topic; it's a statement about routine, mundane fact, where a 'subject-matter expert in fringe', if I am correct in understanding that that is what SBM is meant to be, is wholly unnecessary. In fact, the actual statements that are a run-through of fringe narrative are fairly obvious, because they are only covered by Gorski and Snopes. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm in broad agreement with this. SBM is great for filling the gaps that reliable journals don't feel it's worth their time addressing, but when there is no gap I don't think we need to cite SBM in addition to that reliable journal article. This would be the counter argument I'd like to see; how is the article made better by citing both SBM and another high quality source (which might be the same source SBM based their article on) for the same claim? My impression is that most of the concern is related to worries that this would be a 'give and inch, take a mile' step towards no longer citing SBM at all (either in the article, or a broad change at RS/P).

@Bon courage: Yes, source reliability depends on context. We should be applying similar levels of contextual analysis to any given peer-reviewed research for reliability for the claim, as we should apply to SBM for reliability on where we cite it. We certainly shouldn't stretch this so far as to say that SBM is the de facto best source without the context that there is indeed reason to say it is more reliable than a given journal article. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course, that would be a straw man. But to repeat, if there's MEDRS of course that's great, and we use it. On the other hand the vast majority of peer-reviewed 'journal articles' are irrelevant to the job of writing an encyclopedia, whereas SBM is generally reliable for statements of fact in the FRINGE space. Is there any concrete issue left here? Bon courage (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

So you are willing to accept the community consensus to remove the SBM editorial where we have appropriate higher tier sourcing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside that not-even-wrong question, The Project does not care what sourcing is used so long as WP:V is well satisfied. Appropriate reliable sources verifying content is what it's all about. Bon courage (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The community actually does care, that is why on your journey around wikipedia you will notice that things aren't sourced to every single source which supports the statement they're generally only sourced to the one or two strongest sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, so "well satisfied". Most of this article could be sourced just to WP:SBM and that would be cool enough. Bon courage (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The non-MEDRS stuff could be sourced to a SBM article, just not an editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Such as for a statement like: "No epidemic has ever been caused by the leak of a novel virus." There is zero need for SBM's input here. This isn't a statement about a fringe topic
Disagree. This is a piece of evidence used to argue against a minority view, if not FRINGE-adjacent theory. Absolutely the realm of what SBM discusses or points out all the time. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Right. And remember WP:SBM is WP:GREL. Baffling how a few editors are getting in a twist about these basics. Bon courage (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If you were trying to use an editorial in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal (also WP:GREL) you would be getting the exact same response. Nothing baffling about it, nobody outside the skeptic community places SBM on a pedestal above all other sources. I understand that from inside the community it must look baffling and feel like you're being persecuted, but you aren't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

News editorials are in another world, see WP:NEWSORG. SBM articles are not "editorials". See WP:SBM. It's a good source for asserting facts in WP:WIKIVOICE in the FRINGE area. Bon courage (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

SBM publishes both news content and editorials, the consensus is that their news content is not SPS. There is no consensus that their editorials are not to be treated as SPS, that would be an extremely unique consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really; that's just your faulty imagination. It publishes reviews of topics, which is why it is WP:GREL. Occasionally it does publish opinion, in which case that's obvious though use of wording ("in my opinion ..."). Bon courage (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Its not an academic journal, its a news source. It publishes articles not academic reviews. IMO this topic is beaten to death and I will desist, I really hope you don't feel too persecuted. I had that experience interacting with editors pushing editorials in the Catholic space and I just want to make this as nice as possible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Not persecuted, maybe a little weary having to revisit the same kind of argument for the nth time over so many yers. You demolish your straw men with aplomb, but you probably just need to read WP:SBM to find what the established community consensus is. Bon courage (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Checking the two sources, I don't think SBM actually references novel virus leaks in the article we're citing, only leaks leading to global pandemics: The latter hypothesis didn’t start out as a conspiracy theory, as lab leaks have happened before—although none had ever caused a pandemic that caused millions of deaths worldwide, over a million in the US alone... None of this is to say that the lab leak hypothesis is impossible, or even homeopathy-level improbable. As I mentioned once, lab leaks of pathogens have occurred before, although none have led to a global pandemic.

Our sentence in the article seems to be solely citing the Critical Review from Cell: No epidemic has been caused by the escape of a novel virus, and there is no data to suggest that the WIV—or any other laboratory—was working on SARS-CoV-2, or any virus close enough to be the progenitor, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. With this context, I even more strongly think we shouldn't cite SBM for this sentence, just Cell. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, SBM seems redundant here and can go. Bon courage (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say this particular usage is indeed redundant based on those quotes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

SBM / opening sentence

Err, editors are removing this ref from the opening sentence. The trouble is what remains does not WP:Verify the text that remains. The SBM source is needed to explain basically what lableak is and its variant names. Do editors even read what they edit? This is kind of basic. Bon courage (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's quite frustrating that we've discussed this exact SBM question to death on this talk page, and there clearly isn't consensus in those sections to remove this source. And yet users continue to do so, against consensus. Why? What is gained? I'm perplexed and frustrated, why do we have talk page discussions if users aren't going to follow BRD or STATUSQUO? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's getting seriously disruptive. The editors at fault are aware that WP:CTOP applies here. Bon courage (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed it, and that was my first and only edit to this article. I had not seen and am not part of whatever long-running dispute you have apparently been having about SBM. Endwise (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the sources before making the edit? Because WP:V is core policy ... ? Bon courage (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I read over the SBM article, and skimmed a couple of the other ones. I think a source which uses the term "laboratory escape" rather than "laboratory leak" is an acceptable source for the opening sentence of the article, and as I said, it's not a sentence which really needs a citation in the first place. Endwise (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

So you left an irrelevant one in why? Bon courage (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Because SBM is not the stellar source you are putting it on a pedestal as - so as long as you keep it on that pedestal, impartial editors are going to come along, look at the setup and say: "huh, weird to have that alongside peer-review." Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't need a 'stellar source' to give an overview of what LL is and what it's called. Bon courage (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't need a source at all for an uncontroversial first sentence in an article. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

SO you're okay with having one, but which is irrelevant? Why are you defending that? Bon courage (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Holmes Critical Review? How is it irrelevant. It outlines enough information to support the incredibly rudimentary first sentence - what about the first sentence is not supported? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That there is phenomenon called the lab leak (conspiracy) theory, or lab leak hypothesis which hold that SCV2 leaked from a lab. The Holmes review does not give this basic background. Bon courage (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't use the word 'conspiracy' anywhere, but it explains the idea. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Holmes et al doesn't use the word 'leak' anywhere. It doesn't explain the idea, it takes it as read that it's understood (reasonable, given the intended audience). Increasingly this looks like an attempt to remove a for-some-reason-despised source under any pretext, starting with misidentifying it as scienceblogs. The SBM source is just doing good basic work here, being a decent reliable source supported appropriate text. That's what we do. Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Holmes prefers the language of 'escape', for whatever reason ... perhaps because 'escape' is not colored by the connotations of intentionality. That's rarer diction for sure. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're admitting it's not a stellar source, then what are you saying here - you want to stop improving the sourcing when you have one that's just good-enough? Editors are going to keep coming here and raising their eyebrows at anything that is not peer-reviewed for perpetuity until you get with the programme. The community likes peer-review. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I 'admitted' no such thing. The only editors having problems are either WP:PROFRINGE or WP:CIR afflicted. 'The community' has established views on peer review (mostly irrelevant) and WP:SBM (great for fringe!). That is 'the programme'. Bon courage (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The only editors having problems are either WP:PROFRINGE or WP:CIR afflicted -- which of those am I? Endwise (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah ... you may want to rethink that indiscriminate aspersion-casting. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You invoked the editors that "are going to keep coming here" ... Bon courage (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, normal editors, who use blogs as the rare exception not rule. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, and if they're unaware of WP:SBM, WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY then we're into WP:CIR territory. Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If they're unaware of WP:SBM they may simply never have encountered a page deferring to this particular blog, and might naturally find that a little surprising. Editors are not expected to memorize WP:RSP by rote, and no one in their right mind would take a look at SBM and automatically assume it would likely be featured at WP:RSP, because it looks like (and reads like) a fairly opinionated and editorially moribund blog (which it is). And when that same blog is seen doubling up with peer-reviewed literature, the eyebrows naturally rise higher. This natural reaction from editors is fairly predictable. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Editors can either have a good nose for sourcing (maybe they're well-educated e.g.) or be familiar with Wikipedia's particular sourcing consensus. In the absence of either of those thinking "SBM=bad" (and they'd have needed to do some looking to decide it was 'a blog') and deleting without reading would be bad or appreciating WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If it's 'doubled up' with better sources it can be removed, but that discussion has been had at length. Bon courage (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but as has been raised multiple times, you are somewhat inflating the actual degree of 'fringe' that we have presented here. That questions have been raised about the possibility of a lab leak is not fringe, that it has been investigated is not fringe, most of this article is not fringe. The fringe only comes in with the pushing of the theory beyond the bounds of the evidence to date, as well as more farcical material such as the intentional leaks and bioweapons crap and US-Chinese/general political shit-slinging. You have been using the fact that some marginal aspects of the overall big picture here are fringe to draw this protective aegis over SBM for use in reference to any basic fact or statement on this page, regardless of whether or not that particular fact or statement is, in of itself, fringe - and this is an overextension of WP:SBM. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's all fringe. I suggest you ask at WP:FT/N if you think otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What's all fringe? It's exactly this vague hand-waving that's the issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The subject of this article: the "theory" that a lab leak actually happened. Bon courage (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What's the latest discussion establishing this at WP:FT/N? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, the relevant standard is not whether or not there is a consensus to remove. It's whether or not there is a consensus to include. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That's actually only true for new insertions… It's dependent on what the status quo is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the first sentence actually needs a citation; that part is uncontroversial and sourced throughout the rest of the article. Do you at least agree that we should not use SBM for statements regarding what is and isn't the scientific consensus? The SBM article is a good source for the opinions of David Gorski, a surgeon without expertise in virology, and is not a good source for what the scientific consensus is. Endwise (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:SBM is a WP:GREL, especially for fringe science. Therefore it is good for assertions of fact in Wikipedia's own voice. It is fine for what it is being used for. Statements invoking 'consensus' require WP:RS/AC sourcing which is a different thing. If you think the opening sentence does not need a reference, why did you leave one in that failed WP:V? In controversial articles it's good to reference ledes to prevent (in theory) disruption. Bon courage (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Editorials published in GREL sources are still editorials. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: out of curiosity on this topic, as you've brought it up a few times, could you give some examples of WP:SBM articles you would consider WP:GREL per RS/P because they're not editorial? Because there's no explicit editorial/opinion marking on SBM (at least, that I'm aware of on the two Gorski articles at question), I'm wondering if this is due to an unfamiliarity with the standard SBM style leading to a misinterpretation of the RS/P consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If it doesn't say commentary or Gorski on it then its likely not an editorial or commentary, this piece [6] for example. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This is hopelessly mixing a news mindset with non-news sources. If SBM says something about fringe science (e.g. 'coffee enemas feature in many ineffective alternative cancer treatments') that's just knowledge and assertable as fact. Medical knowledge is not news OpEd. Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It is explicitly not a medical or scientific journal. Its a news blog. Its also not an Op-ed its an Editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You're so off beam you're not even wrong. I suggest if you're struggling with these concepts raise a query at WP:RS/N with some specific examples. SBM is used all over Wikipedia to assert knowledge about health fraud so you've got plenty to look at. Bon courage (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This would at least make for a specific question to be posed at WP:RSN, if we went down that path: are articles with Gorski as an author the exception to SBM being considered generally reliable or not? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Commentary and editorial pieces are always an exception to being considered generally reliable, the question is whether or not these are commentary and editorial pieces (which doesn't actually seem up for dispute, the commentary is marked and the editorials are all in the first person). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As I say, if you're in doubt formulate a specific query (with examples) and ask at WP:RSN. What you've said previously about how to cite medical sources strikes me, frankly, as total bollocks. These general struggles are off-topic here.Bon courage (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a medical source, its a news blog. Per consensus "but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm with Bon courage that clearly there is disagreement whether SBM articles written by Gorski necessarily fall into those categories, which is what posing the question at RSN would be for. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and the way it works is that those who want to use the source are responsible for getting that consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, it seems there currently is local consensus that the sources are usable here. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That would only appear to be true if one disqualified from that consensus editors who are "either WP:PROFRINGE or WP:CIR afflicted" as Bon courage does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

We have consensus: WP:SBM. Unless you can overturn that this is a reliable source for asserting things in wikivoice. This is now getting disruptive for this article Talk page. Put up or shut up (at RSN). Bon courage (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I already linked to that consensus, it explicitly says that SBM does not count towards MEDRS. I second Endwise's observation that "I have never had an interaction on Wikipedia this bizarre." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not struggling with the difference between a journal and a news blog or an op-ed and an editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

it is fine for what it is being used for. Statements invoking 'consensus' require WP:RS/AC sourcing which is a different thing. But that is exactly what SBM is being used as a source for. What?? Endwise (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not. Consensus is not mentioned (would be weird). Did you read WP:RS/AC? Bon courage (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. This is the third time in less than five minutes you've accused me of not reading things. Can you stop please?

WP:RS/AC says A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view... Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

SBM is used as a source in the lead for the statement Most scientists remain skeptical of a laboratory origin, citing a lack of supporting evidence. Endwise (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why? I have never had an interaction on Wikipedia this bizarre. Endwise (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's cited to a bunch of stuff, the SBM ref pertains to the lack of evidence. (Add: but hang on - that cited SBM article says 'scientists have overwhelmingly concluded that evidence points to a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2', so also satifies WP:RS/AC. So what is the issue?) Bon courage (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's fundamentally unneeded in the first sentence, since it's a very basic statement indeed and far from one of that is controversial and leads obviously are not required to be cited at all, except where the information is controversial Iskandar323 (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing both, but if you're going to cite stuff make sure it satisfies WP:V. Bon courage (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

No, neither are fundamentally needed, although the Holmes Critical Review does serve the dual function of being an excellent peer-reviewed introduction to the subject as a whole, so it has secondary benefits. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Citations are used to verify content, not because they're generally nice to read in other ways Bon courage (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe I said dual function. It still contextualizes the lab escape scenario. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

These simple citations are used to verify content, not 'contextualize'. This is all about basic text/source integrity. Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As I've already agreed, neither are fundamentally needed. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Add me to the list of editors who don't think we should be sourcing text in the lead to the Gorski blog. Maybe we should just have an RFC to settle the issue of the perpetual removal and addition. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have a general-interest, non-academic source on the first sentence. But I'd suggest using something from a major WP:NEWSORG, i.e. [7](BBC, very new) or [8] (CNN, also new) or possibly [9] (NYT, older). Adoring nanny (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Concur. Sennalen (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:LOCALCON pimple is swelling. It doesn't matter what source is used so long as WP:V is satisfied. There is zero policy saying a 'general interest' source needs to the first in the article. In fact news sources are generally quite bad for science/med. Bon courage (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

So why do you insist on using SBM which is a news blog? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. What's important is the WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And our policies and guidelines suggest that we should always strive to use the highest quality of source possible. Academic journals are generally higher quality sources than major newsorgs and major newsorgs are generally of higher quality than news blogs. Note that SPS (and those treated as SPS such as opinion and editorial) are at the bottom of the reliable sources pile, in almost all cases we would prefer higher quality sources if available. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Your 'generally' is trying to do too much heavy lifting there. Lay press ('major' newsorgs or not) is generally bad for science, Especially controversial science (Andrew Wakefield anybody?). Your comments about SPS are completely bogus: WP:SBM is not one such, and various other sources are not 'treated' as such because you incompetently imagine they are, Meanwhile, we have some basic, plainly written core policies which mean that text/source integrity needs to be observed. I'm for that. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And not a single individual would appear to be arguing against that point. All proposed versions maintain text/source integrity as is relevant to the lead section of an article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong again. Iskandar323 was arguing we could use another source if we could sorta kinda WP:SYNTH it up into supporting the text. But to cut to the chase: what specific change are you proposing to improve the article? Bon courage (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 does not appear to be arguing that we violate the WP:OR policy. You don't just get to cast aspersions and then insist we "cut to the chase" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

So, no proposal to improve the article, Bon courage (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Not besides for removing SBM in favor of the journal article which you seem to know as you attempted to poison that well by calling it OR (which it does not appear to be). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it would be. But what exactly do you want to do. It's completely unclear. Bon courage (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove SBM in favor of the journal article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Where? Bon courage (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that this section is a discussion about whether or not to remove SBM from the opening sentence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And if you'd been paying attention you'd see it's gone. Just having the journal source would create an WP:OR/WP:V problem but nobody is contesting removing all sources (as already happened a while ago). Bon courage (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you wanted SBM restored. If not what's the point of all the bludgeoning? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm Did you actually read the exchanges? Can somebody close this total arse-ache of a thread please? Bon courage (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Add me also to the list of editors who don't think we should be sourcing text in the lead to the Gorski blog. SBM is not a journal, and Gorski himself has, in recent years, unfortunately burned a lot of the scientific 'credit' he formerly had. Fig (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to try and overturn the community consensus WP:RSN is thataway. Meanwhile, WP:SBM is among our WP:BESTSOURCES for coverage of many aspects of this labkleak stuff. I know lableak stans hate it because it pulls together the actual science on this topic, but that's not a problem Wikipedia can fix. Bon courage (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Weasel wording

Rowing007 is repeatedly adding their own weaselly editorial to the article. Reminder: you can't insert stuff like 'Opponents of the theory point out that ...' unless it's supported by a source, otherwise it infringes WP:NOR (as well as being problematic wrt WP:WEASEL, WP:BLP and WP:SAY). Bon courage (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage: Hello, could you please explain why you believe my edit included weasel wording? Per that guideline, the examples given are not automatically weasel words. The views expressed in the sentences in question are properly attributed to a reliable source and accurately represent the opinions of the source. Therefore, per the guideline, the expressions may be used. In a second instance, could you please explain why you believe my edits do not maintain a neutral point of view? I reworded things to be able to present both sides in an impartial tone.

I'll tell you what I took issue with, which is what pushed me to implement my edit in the first place. The section of "However most large Chinese cities..." until "...and therefore near a laboratory studying coronaviruses." is problematically worded as it does not draw a common thread through its disjointed sections, which, on their own, do not constitute a logical statement. My rewording of that section unifies the distinct concepts to be able to illustrate the actual logical conclusion being made in opposition of the lab leak theory, as explicitly stated in reference #13 (so this is not a case of WP:SYNTH). The fact that I included "Opponents of the theory point out that..." is to maintain neutrality, because the article in its current state reads as if it's arguing against the theory, but if you take issue with "point out" because of WP:SAY, then there should be no problem with "Opponents of the theory say that...". As for WP:WEASEL, everything was properly sourced to begin with; I merely included language that frames the arguments in a balanced and impartial way. Please pinpoint how you believe my edit is "problematic with respect to [...] WP:BLP".

In reference #15 (the one with the multiple sources), the current wording of "This has been described by numerous experts:" is not neutral. I reworded it to "Both directions of this causal mechanism have been described in a number of sources:" because, in fact, some of the sources in the reference mention the lab leak theory being informed by racism and xenophobia, while others describe the opposite causal mechanism, namely that the lab leak theory fueled racist and xenophobic rhetoric. It is important to not imply causality in one way or the other, as this is not neutral, and it could potentitally declare reverse causality.

I removed 2 of the sources in reference #15. The first one, by Nie, Jing-Bao, I removed because the quoted passage is in a section of the paper which is discussing the theory that the U.S. government is the perpetrator of the virus. That theory, the source states, "appeals to a long-rooted xenophobia, growing anti–United States and anti-Western sentiments." Once again, the paper is not talking about the lab leak theory in that quote. It does talk about the lab leak theory in a separate section, but it does not mention any xenophobia or racism; it only presents the lab leak theory in a neutral manner, also alluding to the bioweapon theory, which is again a separate topic. I therefore judged that it was not a relevant source for this Wikipedia article. Similarly, I removed the source by Al-Mwzaiji, Khaled Nasser Ali, because the quoted passage refers to the bioweapon theory, not the lab leak theory.

I modified the section which states "...Orientalist tropes suggesting that...", so that it is instead directly quoting the source material: "...racist tropes that suggest that...". This is another change toward neutrality.

I also made a few copyedits, such as rewording "noticed first" to "first noticed", and added a missing space after a period in the quote in the source by Aria Adibrata, Jordan; Fikhri Khairi, Naufal: "...corner China.Bolsonaro's views...".

I notice you've been involved in this article and its discussions before and you seem to have fairly strong convictions with regards to this topic and associated guidelines, but please WP:AGF when it comes to my involvement. I am truly trying to improve the article through the precise and measured changes I have detailed above. I believe your blanket reversal of my edits has overlooked some of these details, and I would appreciate you taking the time to address these with careful thought, and in a non-accusatory manner. I am in no rush; I am just trying to improve the article. Rowing007 (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As a general rule, it's a bad idea to perform enormous article-wide edits on controversial topics, particularly if they mix original research and odd labelling in, especially for a WP:CTOP. I was clear in my statement of what you did wrong. The minor copyedits I can take or leave but making stuff up (e.g. your 'opponents of the theory' idea) is not neutral, and the violates the basics of editing here. If you are labelling Holmes (or Garry) as an 'opponent of the theory' that could be a WP:BLP issue yes. Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I can see how that language could be construed in that way; the only problem is the word "proponents" is used in various places throughout the article. Either way, "Arguments opposing the theory say that..." is the essence of the rewording I was trying to achieve. Basically, moving away from a POV into a balanced and neutral presentation of both viewpoints; I am not saying the authors of the sources holds those views, I am just presenting those views as they are presented - in opposition to the lab leak theory. My edit was neither enormous, nor article-wide. I implemented precise changes. The large number of bytes is mostly because of the 2 sources removed (per my explanation above). You claim you were clear in your statement of "what [I] did wrong", and I have been clear in why I believe I did not use weasel words, per the guideline itself. I am now communicating to you that you have not been sufficiently clear in your reasoning for me to be able to ascertain your exact disagreements with my edit. Above, I have detailed precisely what I changed and why I changed it. You have not yet addressed the majority of these points, beyond saying you "can take or leave" the minor copyedits (I certainly hope you're not implying ownership). Please go point-by-point (according to my message above) and explain why you take issue with each of these changes. Rowing007 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not an 'argument opposing the theory'. That's POV. It's some knowledge about a common misconception (the 'it would be too much of a coincidence' idea). This framing of this topic as some kind of pro and anti arena, like for a sports team, is puerile and smacks of WP:GEVAL. The WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for your changes. Bon courage (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Haven't looked at this in detail, but you definitely shouldn't use "pointed out" for anything. See WP:SAY. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I did indeed acknowledge this point in my original message, above, and have written a simple substitution which is in line with WP:SAY: "Arguments opposing the theory say that...". As I've said to Bon courage, I believe a detailed examination of my proposed changes is warranted, rather than a cursory glance. Rowing007 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Here are some issues with your most recent edit:

Opponents of the theory point out that most large Chinese cities have laboratories which study coronaviruses

This takes the statement out of wiki-voice, and makes it seem like this is a minority position which isn't accepted by the scientific community. Which is the opposite of the truth. Scholars and scientists decide what we say on Wikipedia, and per WP:RS/AC, we use secondary review articles like the one published in Cell to decide what that is. That review article (and many multiple other high quality sources: [10][11][12][13]) make this point, so we should say it in wiki-voice. Doing otherwise creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE which gives the fringe opinion of the lab leak more legitimacy than it merits in the sources.

Opposition to such narratives states that the latter 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

Similarly, we have ample secondary reviews and other high quality sources which support this statement. Per WP:RS/AC, we should not state these as subjective opinions, but as facts in wiki-voice, given the wide breadth of acceptance among researchers.

Simply changing the way you insert the edit does not fix these problems. The issue is taking the idea out of the mainstream viewpoint and making it seem falsely equivalent or as another side to an argument with the lab leak POV. This violates WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, and qualifying the racist stuff (accepted knowledge) with "and some sources say" is textbook WP:WEASEL wording. Bon courage (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll reply to both of you here, as I'm not a fan of splitting up conversations. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.. I am not trying to favour the lab leak theory through my edits. The fact that it has its own article signals significant weight already allocated to discussing it. Therefore, what I was trying to achieve was a clear delineation between what the theory itself contends, and the arguments/evidence/research against it. I am not trying delegitimize the body of literature/research disproving the lab leak theory, nor am I attempting to weasel in support for the theory itself. A modicum of compusure would be appreciated in the future, as the incessant accusatory undertone of this campaign by both of you is frankly a disturbing overreaction. Rowing007 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We're both more concerned with what your edits do than we are with your personal beliefs or position, which are not very relevant here. Your intent is admirable, and your edits are made in good faith. But they plainly violate those principles described above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And it should be noted the personalization was started with the "you seem to have fairly strong convictions" comment from Rowing007, above. Bon courage (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage, you have a long-standing pattern of portraying lab leak theories as fringe or racist tout court. That did not start with Rowing007. Cutting to the heart of the issue, the article can say that some lab leak theories are racist, or that some people say lab leak theories are racist, but not simply say that lab leak theories are racist. (Because many aren't.) Sennalen (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Err yeah. Defining the "theories" out there as ... whatever (with solid sourcing) is one thing. Making personal remarks about the your fellow editors is another. It's a fairly important distinction. WP:FOC ! Bon courage (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: The racism/xenophobia described in Nie refers to anti-US/anti-Western xenophobia/racism specifically resulting from the fringe theory that the US government started the virus at the Seventh World Military Games. The sentence in the actual article is that The idea of a leak at the WIV [...] has been informed by racist and xenophobic undercurrents. This is not what Nie talks about. That source has no place in that section of the article. As for the sentence-threading in the lead, Maxmen & Mallapaty states the overall point being made (see, specifically, the section on page 314 titled "Is it suspicious that the WIV is in Wuhan?"). It ought to be threaded together with commas (as I did), because the sentences on their own are too choppy/disjointed. I'm adding to the informed by racist and xenophobic undercurrents sentence to also reflect the fact that the lab leak theory has fuelled racist/xenophobic sentiments (i.e., not only has it been informed by racist/xenophobic undercurrents, but it has also fuelled them). I also modified "Orientalist" to be "racist" instead, as is worded in the actual source. Rowing007 (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

oh interesting. Sure, let's remove the Nie source then. It does support the overall sentiment, but not the Chinese-specific sentiment. I also support the modification of "orientalist" to "racist." As to the rest of your comment, I disagree completely with your interpretation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

With respect to the dual causality in the racism/xenophobia section of the lead, I am plainly assessing the words quoted in the sources. I invite you to take a look at the quotes listed in that multi-source reference (i.e., the This has been described by numerous experts: reference).

The following sources (in that singular multi-source reference) indeed state that the theory is informed by racism/xenophobia: Hardy (People question if scientists and/or political leaders created the virus in a lab and/or intentionally leaked it into the general public. [...] reflecting xenophobic ideologies), Mohammadi (Racist Issues: This category is about blaming the Chinese, as a nationality or ethnicity, for causing and spreading the COVID-19 virus), Liu (The lab-leak theory['s] [...] overtones of crude Trumpian racism), Aria Adibrata (Bolsonaro['s] [...] Sinophobic [...] views have received support from [...] Minister of Education Abraham Weintraub, who supported the theory that the Covid-19 pandemic stems from a virus lab leak in China.), Gorski (blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak), and Garry (Lab leak theories are often bolstered by racist tropes).

On the other hand, the following sources (in that same singular multi-source reference) state that the theory fuels racism/xenophobia: Al-Mwzaiji (virus rumors [...] create [...] "racial discrimination, [and] xenophobia."), Allsop (various actors [...] have weaponized the lab-leak theory as part of a racist agenda), Neil (xenophobic instrumentalization of the lab-leak hypothesis), and Perng (politicians promoted the unsubstantiated hypothesis the virus was developed in a laboratory in Wuhan, referring to COVID-19 as "foreign," "Chinese," and "the Kung Flu." Use of such language [...] reinforced racism and xenophobia).

Do you now see the difference between stating that [the theory is informed by racism/xenophobia] and stating that [the theory fuels racism/xenophobia]? While they go hand-in-hand (i.e., they can be mutually reinforcing), they are distinct causal mechanisms. This is the reason I think it is completely neutral and worthwhile to simply mention this double relationship between the lab leak theory and racism/xenophobia. Rowing007 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

so let's insert text akin to: "and has fueled". E.g. The idea of a leak at the WIV also gained support due to secrecy during the Chinese government's response.[3][13] The idea has been informed by (and has, in turn, fueled) racist and xenophobic sentiments. A lot less ambiguous and gets right to the point you're making. I agree it's clearly well-sourced, so let's add something we can agree on. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I was going to say something about "in turn", but, of course, racism and xenophobia existed before COVID-19, so it would absolutely make sense for racism/xenophobia to serve as catalysts for the theory, before the theory itself came to galvanize the very rhetoric that contributed to its formation and subsequent popularity, so there is no causality dilemma. Rowing007 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"Best" vs "available" evidence

@Bon courage: RE: [14] Yes, lines 325−326 state The best existing scientific evidence supports a direct zoonotic origin. However, lines 319−320 state the available evidence favors the latter [zoonosis]. Note that the quote from lines 325−326 specifies existing evidence. Think about this for a second, saying the available evidence (from lines 319−320) is actually a stronger (i.e., more encompassing) statement than saying the best existing evidence. This is because saying the available evidence implies that there is no existing evidence for the lab leak theory, whereas saying the best evidence (or even the best existing evidence) implies that evidence exists for the lab leak theory, just that it isn't as good as the evidence for zoonosis. By insisting on best, you are favouring a weaker statement than what is said in the source. Rowing007 (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think "best" captures the source's stance well. Maybe "best available" would work? Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

But like I explained above, even "best available"/"best existing" is weaker than the explicit statement on lines 319−320 that the available evidence supports zoonosis. In each of the pieces of evidence the source provides for hypotheses #1 and #2 (the lab leak theory), they immediately refute them with However, [...], meaning their statement on lines 319−320 is not a slip-up, and they are truly implying that there is, in fact, no evidence for the lab leak theory, so it would not be a misrepresentation of the source for us to use the exact language from lines 319−320. Rowing007 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I will, however, concede that because the available evidence is such a strong statement, it could potentially lead to more editing disputes. In that sense, the best available evidence is a good middle ground, in my opinion. Either way, the specification of availability/existence of evidence (regardless of its relative quality) is a crucial nuance not omitted anywhere in the source, so it should definitely be included, whether we keep best or not. Rowing007 (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think "best available" is also a good summary of our other available sources e.g. Hakim, Maxmen, Snopes. We could add those sources if a refn if it would help. But overall I think the body is so seldom the subject of editing disputes (the sad truth is people rarely lead much far beyond the lead these days) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The 'best available' wording should probably go in the lede too. Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)