Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 2
This is an archive of past discussions about COVID-19 lab leak theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Verifiable vs Non-verifiable Claims
Please note that I have replaced "Wuhan Institute of Virology" with "a lab in Wuhan, China” as most proponents of the lab leak hypothesis do not implicate the WIV directly, such as Richard Ebright in this Counterpunch article [1]. If we are going to mention the WIV, it should be in the main body of the article, where the connection is properly explained. CutePeach (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Most sources do, however. This article isn't about the promoters of the lab leak theory, it's about the RS coverage of it. WIV should be mentioned in some way, if not in the opening sentence. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well said, —PaleoNeonate – 20:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- PaleoNeonate, ProcrastinatingReader, agreed. We cannot diminish what most RSes say, which is that the WIV is the primary location implicated in this theory. It's what WP:DUE tells us to do.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well said, —PaleoNeonate – 20:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Some issues
Let's consider this version. Expansion would require including who promotes and promoted it, resulting in a similar article to the content at the misinformation article and perhaps information on the investigations one, both already more complete (and would be redundant)... —PaleoNeonate – 15:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- There can be overlap on content between articles; in fact, there often is. It doesn't help (per current consensus #1) we have no agreement on the best article for some of this information, and some of those articles can probably be trimmed with a link to this article. The misinformation article is 95k chars of readable prose, which is near the limit of WP:SIZERULE
- That being said, legitimate content has consistently been removed from those two articles, not due to fringe reasons or NPOV concerns, but simply because it (apparently) doesn't fall within scope. On the former, it's usually Alexbrn who removes citing "this article is about misinformation, which that is not". On the latter, it's usually others who say the added content is not relevant enough to the subject of the article. So a lot of information can be added here that doesn't fit within the others. If this article shouldn't exist, the case needs to be made at AfD, not by sheer force. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Were you aware of the various previous incarnations that were deleted per consensus? Also, although one review closer supported it above, the closing statement was for a draft article. But with the current stub, we at least don't sport a huge misinformation article in mainspace... —PaleoNeonate – 15:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: I sound like complaining above, but if an article was to eventually exist, it definitely needed WP:TNT so I thank you for your initial restart, —PaleoNeonate – 23:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Motivations
The article mentions Trump and allegations of racism, but missing is the attempt to sanction China in hope to offset a monumental domestic management failure, —PaleoNeonate – 15:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- I added something along those lines. If you know of other sources feel free to add. Separately, a list of good articles (scholarly and media) would be helpful in expanding the article, as I believe a lot has been lost over time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think the source of most of the problem is the absence from this article of the elephant in the room: the bait-and-switch pushed by right wing media that takes tentative support for the possibility of a lab leak and turns this into a plea for false equivalency between the zoonotic and lab origin hypotheses. Lab origin has, as far as I can tell, virtually no serious support: all the available genetic and other evidence points to a zoonotic origin, and a lab origin is implausible for a number of reasons. Wuhan is a logical place to be studying a novel zoonotic coronavirus, and a leak from the lab as the origin of onward transmission has not been definitively ruled out - if it is even possible to do so. I think it's important to separate virus-origin with pandemic-origin here, especially with the disinformation being published by NewsCorp in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk • contribs)
- I consider this covered at current time. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Merge proposal
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.
COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis --> Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
This article is totally redundant with the coverage of the topic at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, as well as Wuhan Institute of Virology and COVID-19 misinformation. Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 should be the main article that discusses the lab leak claims, and there is no need for a second article that duplicates the coverage, especially with the current two paragraphs the article has now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Survey
- Support Merge. Agreed. I think the very nature of the Investigations article tells us that it will have the exact same DUE/UNDUE requirements as this new article, and therefore will very likely duplicate entirely the contents. And where it does not duplicate, it will very likely become a POVFORK, serving as a slightly less frequented article to hang POV statements. This is a bit analogous to the relationship between CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory and John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories. And it takes only a quick glance over the former to see how messy of a situation that is, full of POVFORK-type inclusions and FRINGE content not properly contextualized with the mainstream view. I think we should avoid that fate at all costs.
- For an example of this done well, I would point to Moon landing Hoax Claims section of the Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories article. This second set is a situation where the notability and DUE nature of any content in one article should mirror exactly the other, and so they are the same article, one a subsection of the other. If we are to do an expansion of this section of the Investigations article, with careful attention paid to NPOV and RSUW, then I think that would be much preferable to an independent article.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose merge/delete A lot of reliable sources are now covering this, so the situation has changed. There is enough valid sourced information to make an article. I started at [2] Dream Focus 20:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Discussion (merge proposal)
- You're not proposing merging, defined at WP:MERGE as
A merger is the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page. It is done by copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page.
You're saying the page is redundant to existing ones, and you're proposing effectively deleting it. So I don't understand why nobody wants to open an AFD? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)- Because an AfD implies the topic is not notable, which is incorrect. There would be a lot of kneejerk AfD votes that would go "!keep obviously notable" without even addressing the deletion rationale. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, according to the first sentence of WP:N, "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Isn't this the subject of the discussion? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Many people at AfD's don't actually properly read the deletion rationale, and AfD's are only actively attended by a relatively small number of users. A AfD is likely to devolve into a long contenious discussion, similar to that seen for the MfD essays on this topic, which is something I am trying to avoid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Don't think either are true. AfD regularly deals with arguments based on NPOV/BLP/OR/other policies, successfully and as the primary venue. It has a reputation of doing so with high participation and wide diversity in policy arguments, the discussions are widely advertised, close after 7 days, and provide conclusive judgement. The merge process is plagued participation issues, is a poorly organised system, and discussions remain open for indefinite periods of time. No matter, I am happy to oblige and make a procedural nomination myself, and hopefully we can get a firm conclusion to this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Many people at AfD's don't actually properly read the deletion rationale, and AfD's are only actively attended by a relatively small number of users. A AfD is likely to devolve into a long contenious discussion, similar to that seen for the MfD essays on this topic, which is something I am trying to avoid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, according to the first sentence of WP:N, "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Isn't this the subject of the discussion? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Because an AfD implies the topic is not notable, which is incorrect. There would be a lot of kneejerk AfD votes that would go "!keep obviously notable" without even addressing the deletion rationale. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Daszak
Regarding this removal. It's inevitable that Daszak is going to be covered in this article in some form or another. The two main events driving a resurgence of the theory are: the WSJ report, and the Daszak mess. The coverage of him is not exactly favourable in sources. Although there's no consensus of any intentional wrongdoing, the sources do agree that The Lancet report at the time stigmatised discussion on the issue and appears dodgy. I don't see how total exclusion of that content is justifiable, really. Naturally it'll need tweaking for NPOV as it was written by one user; I tried to copyedit it slightly but I'm not familiar with all of the sources on that issue so perhaps people could try do that rather than delete? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- The issue has been handled relatively well at Daszak's own biography. But turning this article into a raft of absurd accusations against Daszak would be highly inappropriate: effectively suggesting that the lab leak idea has merit because we should somehow doubt one of the world's top experts on this topic. Daszak's work remains the consensus on this issue because virologists and infectious disease ecologists know their stuff and agree with him. For our purposes, journal article publications by other scientists overwhelmingly support Daszak's scientific work and publishing. -Darouet (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Those two pieces of correspondence in journals (not peer reviewed) are criticised by investigative journalists. Scientists don't have a monopoly on conflict of interest allegations, and it remains a well covered aspect of the issue in reliable sources and is quite central to the theory. Which policy allows for the removal of one paragraph of well sourced unflattering content? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Interestingly, the coverage on his own article (Peter_Daszak#COVID-19_pandemic) takes a similarly negative tone:
The letter has been criticized by Jamie Metzl for embodying "poor science", and by Katherine Eban of Vanity Fair as having had a "chilling effect" on scientific research and the scientific community by implying that scientists who "bring up the lab-leak theory... are doing the work of conspiracy theorists". According to emails obtained by FOIA, Daszak was the primary organizer of the letter, and had communicated with colleagues while drafting and signing the letter to "conceal his role and creat[e] the impression of scientific unanimity.". It also caused controversy since Daszak did not disclose that his EcoHealth Alliance group had an existing relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, with some alleging that this was an apparent conflict of interest. In June 2021, The Lancet published an addendum in which the April 2020 letter's authors were asked to update their competing interest disclosures. As the only author to do so, Daszak listed his cooperation with researchers in China.
So you'll have to explain the problem here? You don't think those things (eg a letter producing a "chilling effect" on the discussion of this article's subject) are things that should be mentioned here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)- I think the topics you mention (the "chilling effect" of the letter, and the later COI statement) are absolutely notable on this topic. Regarding the original diff mentioned, it had some serious NPOV/OR/WTW issues ("objective evaluation of a lab origin by the scientific community was halted" and "small group of researchers who were funded to study pandemic causing viruses" both being problematic, and that's just the opening sentence). Important topic, definitely needed a rewrite from what was originally there. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't write it. While I agree it needed copyediting for tone at minimum, I think as a rule it would've been better to do that than full removal. I attempted to correct some of it and I think that was a reasonable base for further modifications. I just think it's less likely to be a testing editing process to try build on others' contributions rather than delete, unless there is absolutely nothing to build on (such as in the most recent section I removed). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I removed another paragraph, but that one should stay, agree with Bakkster Man. There are two things here. (a) there was indeed a COI as a matter of fact (this is nothing special, a lot of people have COI with regard to something). (b) a letter by scientists (basically an opinion letter) was criticized by people who disagree - this is fine to include if properly worded. My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'll add that the notable (and out of the ordinary) item was not the COI itself, but the lack of disclosure until the following year. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- True. Things like that can be even regarded as a scientific misconduct which undermines his credibility on this issue. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'll write more on this later - sorry for delay - but this article is about the lab leak idea, not about how one of the leading researchers on this topic can't be trusted. Such a focus would become a coatrack and a mechanism for implying, but not arguing outright, that we should discount the science on SARS-CoV-2, and one of its leading scientists. If any part of this is mentioned, we can note the allegation very briefly, and then note why it's the case that this doesn't seem particularly relevant to scientists interested in or studying the origins of SARS-CoV-2. There's a ton written about the political motivations of the attacks on Daszak and that should receive more prominent mention, as it helps explain the lab leak idea in the larger context of scientific consensus on the issue. -Darouet (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's covered in the context of the investigation, by several reliable sources. It's noted as having a chilling effect on the investigation, by several reliable sources. The effective derailing of an investigation is clearly (according to several reliable sources) an important event to be noted in the article of that investigation. It's the reliable sources that decide what is relevant to a topic. There is nothing unreliable in the slightest about The British Medical Journal, The Times, The Conversation, an investigative journalist at Vanity Fair, etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- I generally agree. To cover the history, we should mention the alleged chilling effect of the letter as described in the sources we have, and the renewed openness after the WHO report was published. One sentence on the Daszak COI disclosure is worth noting in the context of the letter, I wouldn't suspect anything more or less to be likely to be appropriate. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
this article is about the lab leak idea, not about how one of the leading researchers on this topic can't be trusted
absolutely, —PaleoNeonate – 20:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's covered in the context of the investigation, by several reliable sources. It's noted as having a chilling effect on the investigation, by several reliable sources. The effective derailing of an investigation is clearly (according to several reliable sources) an important event to be noted in the article of that investigation. It's the reliable sources that decide what is relevant to a topic. There is nothing unreliable in the slightest about The British Medical Journal, The Times, The Conversation, an investigative journalist at Vanity Fair, etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'll write more on this later - sorry for delay - but this article is about the lab leak idea, not about how one of the leading researchers on this topic can't be trusted. Such a focus would become a coatrack and a mechanism for implying, but not arguing outright, that we should discount the science on SARS-CoV-2, and one of its leading scientists. If any part of this is mentioned, we can note the allegation very briefly, and then note why it's the case that this doesn't seem particularly relevant to scientists interested in or studying the origins of SARS-CoV-2. There's a ton written about the political motivations of the attacks on Daszak and that should receive more prominent mention, as it helps explain the lab leak idea in the larger context of scientific consensus on the issue. -Darouet (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- True. Things like that can be even regarded as a scientific misconduct which undermines his credibility on this issue. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'll add that the notable (and out of the ordinary) item was not the COI itself, but the lack of disclosure until the following year. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think the topics you mention (the "chilling effect" of the letter, and the later COI statement) are absolutely notable on this topic. Regarding the original diff mentioned, it had some serious NPOV/OR/WTW issues ("objective evaluation of a lab origin by the scientific community was halted" and "small group of researchers who were funded to study pandemic causing viruses" both being problematic, and that's just the opening sentence). Important topic, definitely needed a rewrite from what was originally there. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Text copied from SARS-COV-2 main article to here
Per my comments above and the discussion there, I've copied text and sources (but have not transcluded) from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and origin to this article, COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Scientific consensus on likely natural zoonosis from bats. I or other editors might copy additional material, and possibly modify it slightly, from that article into into one in order to contextualize the discussion about a possible laboratory origin with strong scientific references.
Per User:ProcrastinatingReader, I am copying rather than transcluding, so that we can decide what to include at a more granular level. I'm hesitant to take this approach because it can be used to shift text away from what scientific editors have added at SARS-CoV-2 and towards a pro-leak viewpoint that is right dismissed by most scientists. Nevertheless I'm adopting the copying approach in the hopes that we can avoid that pitfall. -Darouet (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
You can see the diff of the copying here [3]. -Darouet (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- That seems like a good start to me. There's probably more that can be added, but there are editors better versed on the science than me. Perhaps Novem Linguae? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, looks good to me. I'm sure some other people will take a crack at it too :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Lancet IRT speculation
IRT Special:Diff/1034473522, the intended emphasis was not "more investigation needed", but that it was a call for legitimate scientific investigations by the scientific community, resulting from the widely disseminated unwarranted/hasty speculation. Another editor had also tagged it as primary, so maybe it can be left out for now... —PaleoNeonate – 19:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. A claim like that (which is contentious and concerns contentious stuff that has easily escalated to edit wars in the past) needs to be sourced with a high quality secondary RS which has a very close interpretation to the statement.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't even aware when I originally inserted this source that a huge controversy was created around one of its authors. If used, it would need to be with a secondary source that mentions both this paper's position as well as how controversy was fabricated... —PaleoNeonate – 20:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Another source from Github
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.
I just want to point out that there is this good Link to Github, which is a really nice summary of the lab leak hypothesis. May be good for some sources https://project-evidence.github.io/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.75.224 (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- The conclusion section is a good summary of this document. Looks like a list of pro-lab leak sources and arguments. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just me, or do these look like primarily WP:SELFPUB circumstantial evidence, with not a bit of reliable WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Didn't dig too far because none of it was formatted clearly enough to know what I was clicking into, but if someone else can dig the reliable sources from it knock yourself out. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm seeing some red flags. Such as the assertion that WIV was engaging in the creation of chimeric coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 is a mosaic virus. Maybe some Wikipedian with expertise has time to spend on deciphering all this, but I'll be sticking to the best sources we've found on this topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, this is almost entirely WP:OR, based on primary sources that often do not say what the authors have cited them to say. For example, their citation of the SHC014 paper completely misunderstands where/how the research was conducted, as it was at the Baric lab, not the WIV. Their citation of the bat COVs paper in 2007 also completely misunderstands that paper, asserting that it involved chimeric viruses, when it involved mostly pseudoviruses (which cannot replicate, they are more aptly described as "Virus-like particles (VLPs)") which are actually the basis for vaccines, not bioweapons. That's just the first two links I clicked. They also cite the "Huang Yanling" conspiracy theory, for which no actual evidence exists (and has been debunked by experts numerous times). They also cite the "Canadian Lab" conspiracy theory that is not only unsupported by evidence, it misunderstands which viruses are which [4]. I also LOL'd when I read this: "
If an infected animal was indeed the culprit, why did it fail to infect a single person outside of the market?
" which means these folks either don't know about, or have completely ignored, all the evidence we have supporting pre-market spread in Wuhan/Hubei. I presume there are more errors here, as it does not appear these individuals have any qualifications to understand the papers they cite. No virologist or biodefense researcher would make such simple mistakes. I would echo Novem Linguae in saying that, as a wikipedian with expertise, I don't want to spend the time necessary to decipher this, and I think the cursory survey of their scientific rationale I just went through means no one should. It isn't worth our time.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just me, or do these look like primarily WP:SELFPUB circumstantial evidence, with not a bit of reliable WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Didn't dig too far because none of it was formatted clearly enough to know what I was clicking into, but if someone else can dig the reliable sources from it knock yourself out. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
This document ... examines the probability that each claim is true to allow the reader to make his or her own conclusions.
andAn earlier version of this document referred to us as "Project E.P.S.T.E.I.N."
Yeah, I'm done; that's too much of a red flag. This blatantly isn't MEDRS compliant and I wouldn't use it as a source even for non-MEDRS statements. If there are useful links in the document, someone else can find them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
A reality check from BBC News
The lab-leak idea is now being described as an "unproven theory" - not a "conspiracy theory". BBC no longer appears to support using that term, which appears nowhere in this 980-word Reality Check. "Coronavirus: Was US Money Used to Fund Risky Research in China?" BBC News, 23 July 2021. –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Dervorguilla: There are different versions of the lab leak. Some of them (anything that claims deliberate engineering, notably) have been thoroughly refuted by scientists and are still conspiracy theories, based on the WP:BESTSOURCES (scientists in relevant fields writing review articles in relevant journals). The one version that isn't is properly differentiated as such at the bottom of the #Versions section. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your parenthetical policy restatement ("scientists … in relevant journals") is good creative prose. If you go reread the WP:BESTSOURCES policy description, though, you'll find a quotebox right above it that cites
BBC Trust's policy on science reporting
. - BBC News isn't a scientific journal – yet we can nonetheless treat it as an eminently authoritative high-quality source here, per BESTSOURCES policy. (
Look online for the most reliable resources … or ask at the reference desk.
) –Dervorguilla (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)- Citing BBC News when BESTSOURCES explicitly says "Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources." is quite a bit of a misreading of that. You're supposed to look deeper than the newspaper, which is what I and others have painstakingly done whenever challenged - see examples here and here. WP:SOURCETYPES is also quite clear. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Some scholarly material may be outdated…. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.
Clear enough for me! –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)- "Outdated" could apply if the material in question was several years old. Journal articles from a few months or even a year ago are certainly not "outdated", especially not when they keep getting cited by their peers, and especially not when more recent articles do not disagree with them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Citing BBC News when BESTSOURCES explicitly says "Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources." is quite a bit of a misreading of that. You're supposed to look deeper than the newspaper, which is what I and others have painstakingly done whenever challenged - see examples here and here. WP:SOURCETYPES is also quite clear. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your parenthetical policy restatement ("scientists … in relevant journals") is good creative prose. If you go reread the WP:BESTSOURCES policy description, though, you'll find a quotebox right above it that cites
- I scanned through the article, and none of our uses of the word "conspiracy" seem out of place. There have been others which I've removed, but broadly speaking looks good right now. We're either using past tense (was considered, chilling effect, change in reporting, etc), attributing minority opinions, or accurately describing the way the theory was weaponized politically. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- A reason why both are intertwined is also that for it to be the case one must suspect a lot of people to have hidden information and lied, including scientists there are no valid reasons to doubt, other than having international scientific relationships, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 14:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- The BBC is very politically correct, as recently as 2018 they referred to the JFK incident as "cover-up", the word "conspiracy" only appearing when quoted by others. It would not surprise me that they referred to it as an unproven theory, but we all know that if it was, and it was covered up, there would have to have been a conspiracy to do so. It's a bit like the "sprint" qualifying at Silverstone last weekend, it definitely was not a race, even though it was a race. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The word "hypothesis"
During the AfD - closed recently as "keep" - a few editors, myself included - voted "keep" with some concern about the NPOV potential of the word "hypothesis". I wondered if we could discuss this word in the article title - maybe we should be looking at an article title without its potentially weighted and heavily suggestive definition?
Off the top of my head - "Allegations about..." or "Coverage about..." could be a good alternative. Open to any suggestions. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps keep this discussion contained to the section immediately above: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Requested move 26 July 2021. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
"Versions" section -- what exactly is this theory?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "the lab leak theory" is the stuff in #Accidental_release_of_a_natural_virus right? Basically, if I understand correctly, the theory spread under this name is that a natural zoonotic virus found its way into a lab somehow (perhaps by workers collecting samples), possibly was altered through some scientific stuffs (like "gain of function research"), and accidentally someone walked it out of the lab and it made its way into the wider world? The "bioweapon theory" isn't actually the "lab leak theory" right? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Broadly speaking, I'd consider any theory in which the virus was not deliberately released as a "lab leak theory". Meaning, potentially, a bioweapon which accidentally released would be a "lab leak", but not necessarily as credible of one as the others. The challenge is, lacking strong epidemiology of the early outbreak, much of the supporting evidence cited to support a lab leak refers to the laboratory's activities and potential markers of such in the virus genetics. So we can't adequately describe any individual theory without explaining each and how they differ, which does make it challenging. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Confused mashup of (#"Accidental lab leak of a natural virus" vs "accidental leak of a modified virus" vs "intentional bioweapon"), and: conspiracy theory vs political disinformation vs scientific hypothesis... The current article touches all of it, I think. —PaleoNeonate – 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- I group lab leak into the following 3 versions: deliberate bioweapon (Li-Meng Yan stuff), gain-of-function research, accidental release of a natural sample. I often see them discussed together, although you could certainly argue that bioweapon isn't a "lab leak" if it was released deliberately. I think Li-Meng Yan was fuzzy on that part though... she just said that SARS-CoV-2 looked bio-engineered, she didn't necessarily speculate how it entered circulation.
- Right now our article appears to conflate/combine bio-engineering and gain-of-function research into one category called "Deliberate genetic engineering". It also strangely doesn't go into depth about gain-of-function research, not mentioning the term anywhere except the "see also". It might make sense to split that section into "Bio-engineering" and "Gain-of-function research", similar to the COVID-19 misinformation article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, not helping is that some have linked both gain of function research and bioweapon in their claims. I however agree about the technical distinction, —PaleoNeonate – 17:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Novem Linguae, Yes I would agree that we should make that technical distinction.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
BOAS RS
Why say Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is not RS? I searched Wikipedia and I see it is cited 49 times on biosecurity topics. I think the Wade article is the best and most cited article on the subject.--Francesco espo (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, what statement are you trying to include cited to BOAS? ProcSock (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I suggest asking for opinions at WP:RSN. ProcSock (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wade's piece in BOAS, in this situation, is not an RS here because it is an unmodified reprint of an opinion piece originally self-posted by Wade on Medium. It is an opinion piece, by someone who does not qualify for WP:RSOPINION, so it is not useable for our purposes, much less so because it makes WP:REDFLAG assertions, both because they are "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" and because Wade alleges that there is a cover-up within the scientific establishment ("This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."). "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.", not the opinionated ramblings of a non-expert. In addition to the above, which is part of the core verifiability policy, you can have a look at WP:MAINSTREAM. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 18:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- BOAS featured Wade's investigation as the top article on its main page for five weeks (May 5 through June 7). And
the Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise
(so it says). This sounds like the kind of RS we can use here! See RSN, 10 May 2021 and 24 May 2021 (as we're not trying to say whether this nonmainstream WP:FRINGE hypothesis islikely to be true
). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 23:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC) - While I'm opposed to using the source as reliable enough for the broader Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article, I think its republishing in BoAS is sufficient to support using it reliably here. All given the caveat that we attribute the claims to Wade and not portray them as equal weight to scientific papers and opinions. That is to say, while his claims are weak (because they're mostly an aggregation of weak claims) they're still verifiable, and should be presented as such: claims which accurately represent the views of a minority. Perhaps some additional caution on any claims based purely on pre-prints.
- I'd rather we use BoAS as the source referencing pre-prints as such (that is to say, as a verifiable source for unreliable claims), than link to the pre-prints directly. It's not peer-review, but it's at least a bit of a filter (for instance, he didn't cite Li-Meng Yan, helping us distinguish the more rational minority view from the true crackpots). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Except it is just an opinion piece, and thus a primary source, which still makes REDFLAG claims even if they aren't quite as crazy as those of others. There's already a mention of it in the article, based on independent and secondary sources, and I think we ought to keep it like that. Of course, the coverage can be expanded if need be - although it needs to remain clear that Wade is alleging the virus was genetically manipulated and that these claims have been rebuted by scientists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: Its author (a former NYTimes science reporter and science editor) calls it an
in-depth news story
— and directly contrasts it witheditorials or opinion pieces
. BoAS listed it as a featuredstory
. Have you found a reputable authority that calls it an "opinion piece"? –Dervorguilla (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 19:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)- It's worth asking how independent 3rd parties describe the article. Would need to back up the "in-depth news story" claim, as well. A few examples based on searching Google News for
"Nicholas Wade" covid
:
- It's worth asking how independent 3rd parties describe the article. Would need to back up the "in-depth news story" claim, as well. A few examples based on searching Google News for
- @RandomCanadian: Its author (a former NYTimes science reporter and science editor) calls it an
- Except it is just an opinion piece, and thus a primary source, which still makes REDFLAG claims even if they aren't quite as crazy as those of others. There's already a mention of it in the article, based on independent and secondary sources, and I think we ought to keep it like that. Of course, the coverage can be expanded if need be - although it needs to remain clear that Wade is alleging the virus was genetically manipulated and that these claims have been rebuted by scientists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Worth pointing out, a fair number of these pieces are opinion themselves. Adding the search term "in-depth" I was able to find one major source backing up the "in-depth" side.
- "In a May 5, 2021, in-depth analysis of clues about COVID-19’s origins, former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade summarized 2018 and 2019 NIH grant documents involving EcoHealth Alliance"[14]
- I think it's fair to say, reception is all over the map, in part depending how much you agree with his conclusion (or that of his previous work, referenced above at times as "controversial" and "disgraced"). Mixed enough not to take the BoAS's claims at face value, but not necessarily so mixed as to completely disregard or spend more space challenging his authority than describing what was said. I'll note, the relatively obvious solution for the above concerns is probably to find reliable sources repeating/reporting Wade's claims, and cite those. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Bakkster Man: The only MEDRS which discusses (and dismisses) Wade's claims is Frutos, months before Wade published his piece in BOAS, so it doesn't name him, obviously. The other sources, which do mention him, are Gorski and I think the snopes article, neither of which are MEDRS. I doubt we'll get much more than that. Mainstream NPOV (what we're aiming for) is not a headcount of how the topic is covered in the popular press. If the popular press say one thing, but the scientists and the academics say another, then we give more weight to the scientists. If the scientists describe Wade's claims as bollocks, we describe them as such (while still mentioning them per WP:DUE, because of the coverage they receive in the press).
- @Dervorguilla: "Story"? Like Hänsel and Gretel? Joke aside, what BOAS says it is has no bearing on how we consider it. What we do consider is the three criteria listed at Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. The work itself promotes many WP:REDFLAG claims, for example, by alleging there is a conspiracy to cover this up within a supposedly unethical scientific community ("Any virologist who challenges the community’s declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency.") Second, the author, a journalist, known for having written a very troublesome book about genetics (which was widely denounced by geneticists) makes many claims about topics far out of his field of expertise, saying right from the start that "By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses.": Wade has no expertise in virology, biology, or any related field. Why Wade decided to publish this work about "the molecular biology of viruses" (not about "biosafety", since Wade is explicitly making claims about the genetics of the virus, only spending a very short amount of time on safety procedures at the WIV) in a journal which has no relation with the topic also speaks of the reliability of the publisher, and the fact that there was no effective peer-review of this (this is further confirmed by the fact is is basically an exact copy of the self-published piece on Medium). As for what the work itself is, it clearly looks like a piece where the writer explains their opinion (right from the start, Wade writes that "But those clues point in a specific direction. And having inferred that direction, [...]") This direction, which Wade claims is that "The evidence above adds up to a serious case that the SARS2 virus could have been created in a lab"; is dramatically at odds with the reliable sources published by scientists in the relevant field (such as those I quoted to the IP in the RM discussion), which write stuff like "Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it."
- Given that, I contend that, very clearly, Wade's article is making exceptional claims, but fails to meet the "exceptional evidence" required to do so. REDFLAG clearly states "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." (which the Wade article/essay/opinion piece is not; and which WP:MEDPOP pieces in newspapers are not either); and gives as an example "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. [emphasis mine]" I don't think there's any possible dispute that Wade makes claims which are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community; nor can there be any dispute that Wade claims (as quoted above) that there is a conspiracy to silence proponents of this idea. Because some journalists and politicians have taken Wade's claims uncritically does not mean that we can do so here, since we're an encyclopedia, which means we are biased towards academia and actual science, not the popular Zeitgeist in one North-American country. The only way we can use the Wade piece, therefore, is to report on notable claims made within it, if these have also been reported in independent sources. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
If the scientists describe Wade's claims as bollocks, we describe them as such.
Completely agree, and never intended to give any indication otherwise. Merely addressing that these are the kinds of references that should determine how we refer to the article/essay (the two terms I'd suggest), rather than taking BoAS or Wade's self-description at face value. And continuing the discussion that I support citing Wade's piece directly with the due weight it deserves here (as opposed from my opinion that it's UNDUE on the Investigations article). Bakkster Man (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)- Bakkster Man, RandomCanadian, I broadly agree with most of what you two have written above, but I would lean towards Bakkster Man's assertion that this BOAS piece is not at all useful for claims of fact, but is likely useful for attributed opinions weighted duly in proportion to their representation in articles about the leak theories.
- In this case, given a comparison between the sources we have at the top of the article, and those listed describing Wade, I would put that due weight at "maybe a couple of sentences, or where otherwise important to establish Wade supported an idea already in the article."
- Nothing Wade said should be taken as fact, and we should only include things he's said if others deem it important enough to discuss. Most of all because the Wade piece is WP:PRIMARY, but also because he is not an expert by any meaning of the word. He has no formal training in biodefense or biosecurity, and he has never published about it before in any reputable outlet. No one in any of these sources characterizes him as having expertise in these topics, even if they (in a non-reliable way) praise his piece. No literature or scientific sources praise his piece or his expertise. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Worth pointing out, a fair number of these pieces are opinion themselves. Adding the search term "in-depth" I was able to find one major source backing up the "in-depth" side.
)
Problems with the Who investigation
We should quote exactly what those involved said. What I wrote in a different draft I think explain the situation well:
WHO's director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated: "Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts". The WHO team investigating the virus's origin were not allowed to do a full audit of the Wuhan lab. [1] He later stated it was "premature" to dismiss the lab leak as the origin of the virus. [2]
Over two dozens experts signed an open letter calling for a proper investigation in China specifically to determine if a lab leak happened from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Their complaints about the previous investigation was that China was given veto power over who was allowed to be on the investigation team. Peter Daszak, who has a long-time collaboration with the Wuhan lab, was on the team. Other complaints were that they weren't allowed to enforce international protocols, they weren't allowed to demand access to records or samples at the lab, nor talk to any key personnel there. [3]
Former CDC director Robert Redfield stated he believes COVID-19 came from the Wuhan lab. He also states the WHO were compromised. [4]
The WHO-China investigation team did write in their report: “The closest known CoV RaTG13 strain (96.2%) to SARS-CoV-2 detected in bat anal swabs have been sequenced at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market. Such moves can be disruptive for the operations of any laboratory.” [5]
References
- ^ "The WHO's leader said its investigation into whether the coronavirus leaked from a Wuhan lab was not 'extensive enough'". www.msn.com.
- ^ "The WHO's Chief Says It Was Premature To Rule Out A Lab Leak As The Pandemic's Origin". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-07-19.
- ^ "What happened in Wuhan? Why questions still linger on the origin of the coronavirus". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2021-06-11.
- ^ Exclusive: Former CDC director believes COVID-19 came from Wuhan lab, retrieved 2021-06-15
- ^ "WHO-China report on coronavirus's origin conflicts with declassified US intelligence". Washington Examiner. 2021-03-30. Retrieved 2021-06-21.
Dream Focus 08:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- It has to be covered up to some point considering that it's among arguments used to dismiss the legitimacy of the official investigations. It's already covered in 3.4 Accidental release of a natural virus at the moment, however. There's an empty subsection about RaTG13, but it's also covered in the current Scientific background section (not a direct ancestor). —PaleoNeonate – 19:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Updating this thread as Tedros was added. There were various previous discussions on the importance of avoiding GEVAL between WHO official statements and the director... —PaleoNeonate – 17:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- @PaleoNeonate: thanks for bringing this to my attention, I was unaware of the previous discussions – would you be able to link to them for me? I personally think it's better with Tedros' comments included, especially as he said there would be a further WHO-led investigation into the lab leak theory in that speech. I'd like to read why others think differently. Even if Tedros' comments are removed, I think the mention of the WHO report in the lead should still include a clause qualifying it by that saying that data was withheld. Several scientists on the WHO team said this (Tedros was simply repeating their concerns in his speech) and there was widespread coverage of this. Do you have any suggestions on the best way to present this? Jr8825 • Talk 19:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late answer, now deferring this to the new related thread below. But you can look at the talk page archives of the origin investigations and the misinformation articles, —PaleoNeonate – 07:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- @PaleoNeonate: thanks for bringing this to my attention, I was unaware of the previous discussions – would you be able to link to them for me? I personally think it's better with Tedros' comments included, especially as he said there would be a further WHO-led investigation into the lab leak theory in that speech. I'd like to read why others think differently. Even if Tedros' comments are removed, I think the mention of the WHO report in the lead should still include a clause qualifying it by that saying that data was withheld. Several scientists on the WHO team said this (Tedros was simply repeating their concerns in his speech) and there was widespread coverage of this. Do you have any suggestions on the best way to present this? Jr8825 • Talk 19:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Claims and rebuttals
Unfortunately this presentation invites typical WP:GEVAL: "foo says this but bar says that". It may be unavoidable but could be mitigated by formulating the paragraphs with care and avoiding to attribute the mainstream scientific view where possible (vs claims and public opinion, per WP:YESPOV). —PaleoNeonate – 19:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- PaleoNeonate, agreed that it is risky. But it is similar to the approach taken at Moon landing conspiracy theories, which is also a heavily contentious article. I think if done well, it can make everybody happy. Because it puts the steel-manned arguments forward, and then knocks them down. But of course that will require very very delicate craftsmanship, agreed.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- @PaleoNeonate: That's what I'm trying to do with the #Deliberate genetic engineering subsection (to begin with). It probably needs to be done with the others too. Is the current format good? i.e. , "Somebody notably said X. Scientists say X is bollocks for reasons Y and Z". Or do you have better suggestions? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and for things that are not discussed in reliable sources and are only supported by primary or dubious sources, they are likely simply undue and should be omitted. I spent a few hours reading a number of sources earlier today and noticed that no credible source presents such pro/con lists. Various mention the scientific consensus that a lab leak is considered unlikely, especially as a pandemic origin. We often find the standard "cannot be ruled out" or "more information is needed", etc, that conspiracists tend to transform into "yes" shows (and unfortunately even Fox News does this, misleading many, some sources mention this fact). As we know, that's not new and happens with ufology like cherry picking in a recent report, it happens with dubious medicines and pseudoscientific medicinal treatments, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 20:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm for a better answer to your format question I'll come back later after having reread the current state of the article, I might also boldly copy-edit... —PaleoNeonate – 20:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC