Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 14

Science new paper on Huanan Market
The Pekar et al (2022) paper "The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2" is online and published. I see that Alexbrn edited in favor of waiting for a MEDRS before using this source. I've been following the debate on twitter on how is this result impacting the consensus around the different origin hypotheses, and there is still controversy over this issue. A sidenote result is that Science is no longer opposing Nature in the way it handles origins' papers, by publishing Pekar it is implicitly approving the natural origin story. What is your take on how this will impact our coverage of SARS-CoV-2 origin here in Wikipedia? Forich (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * While I think it's probably right, my first impression is to stick with the threshold of requiring secondary sources unless there's consensus this study is exceptional. Being in Science is the level of quality to at least consider making it an exception to the standard threshold. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's some coverage in SBM. Since we're dealing with a fringe topic this would be appropriate to use. Money quote: Alexbrn (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Does SBM meet WP:PARITY in this case, where there is peer reviewed science on both sides? Again, not that I wouldn't agree with the overall context, only that I'd suggest we probably can't directly cite SBM on this. But it's probably good context for what to cite from the Science paper, particularly on this page. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's WP:MEDRS disputing the new evidence? Alexbrn (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but there are low-quality peer reviewed studies in minor journals suggesting a lab leak, which means we need at least another peer reviewed study (like this one in Science) to fulfill WP:PARITY. Parity is mostly meant for 'rando guy self-publishes book no scientist is going to waste peer review on refuting', right? Again, it's solid confidence that we wouldn't be performing WP:SYNTH to cite the Science paper to say there's 'evidence of multiple zoonotic origins at the market' in opposition to the idea that the origin was WIV, but I'm not sure SBM can be cited directly here. Feel free to convince me otherwise. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Primary sources in low-quality journals for fringe ideas (aka unreliable sources) are easily trumped by SBM, otherwise Wikipedia would say homeopathy works and vaccines cause autism. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, my point is that we should use the reliable mainstream peer reviewed studies which provide that context directly, rather than SBM's analysis of already reliable studies. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it was you who started off asking for a secondary source. I'm not getting the push back. Alexbrn (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I was probably thinking more in terms of the generalized articles. On this article specifically about the fringe lab theory, we've had the understandably lower threshold for inclusion. Maybe we don't need to cite SBM in addition to the peer review, but I withdraw my opposition to using SBM if it explicitly draws a link not present in the Science paper, in order to provide mainstream analysis opposite the existing fringe claims. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine to cite SBM and the Science Paper together. It may be there is never a new review article on this topic (though likely, in time, there will be books) and Wikipedia's article risks just getting out-of-date and irrelevant while the science has settled. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with this opinion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Who said the science is settled? 2600:8804:6600:45:8976:A77A:5C7A:FA16 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The SBM source. It's only special pleading and unsound reasoning that now supports the lab leak story, it says. (Not that this will deter the True Believers, whose beliefs will no doubt calcify.) Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * His name is Steven Novella  2600:8804:6600:45:8976:A77A:5C7A:FA16 (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, an expert on scientific critical thinking in a reputable source is great for us, especially when dealing with a WP:FRINGE idea like the lab leak conspiracy theory. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So its a "conspiracy" theory now? 2600:8804:6600:45:8976:A77A:5C7A:FA16 (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup! Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You cite an article from "Nottinghamshire Live", which cites the tabloid Daily Mirror? - Palpable (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We have multiple high quality sources which refer to some versions of the lab leak idea as a "conspiracy theory" including Hakim et al. and many others  —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Compare with "Steven Novella MD", Yale School of Medicine: -Dervorguilla (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Luckily we have WP:RSN discussions to defer to on this. Per an RSN RfC on this matter, Novella's posts on SBM are RS on critical thinking in fringe topics, especially pseudoscience. We defer to consensus, not your personal opinion. See also: WP:SBM — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In my reply to Alexbrn's comment, I'm viewing it through the compound lens of WP:SBM, WP:RS#SOURCEDEF policy ("authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject"), and WP:RSVETTING ("Does the author have an opinion on the matter?"). Up front, right in his subheadline, Novella talks about "killing the lab-leak hypothesis" - a clear signal that this is the author's (strong) opinion. -Dervorguilla (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * science-based opinions, Wikipedia likes. Crankery, not so much. Time for this article to get real in line with RS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad we concur! Here, Novella seems to be writing in his capacity as a skilled, aggressive polemicist. Bailey seems to be writing as a more disinterested science reporter. In line with WP:RS#BIASED, we may use both sources. -Dervorguilla (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Luckily, the difference between these is the RSN entries. Bailey, writing for a publication which is recognized for its opinion and reporting intermix, and therefore not usable here, versus Novella, who is writing for a publication which we consider reliable for its expertise in science. Bailey has no expertise in these issues, whereas Novella does. Your opinion is not as relevant as the RSN entries, sorry. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Those RSN entries, in aggregate, support the established consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. -Dervorguilla (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's ignoring the addendum about Reason's issues with biased opinion, which is the relevant part in this case of "analysis" by an unqualified non-expert. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you need two sentences, one about multiple zoonoses citing Pekar et al, and a separate sentence that cites SBM. Note that the other Science paper (Worobey et al) says "there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events" after peer review forced them to remove a stronger claim ("incontrovertible evidence ... for the zoonotic emergence of SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan market"). SBM should not be used to override the judgement of the peer reviewers at Science. - Palpable (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont see any new geolocating info in this report. It looks like nice analysis of the lineages, but to me it seems you could easily assume anything that happened at a market could happen in a lab. I agree with Bakkster Man on waiting for a bit more peer analysis. 2600:8804:6600:45:8976:A77A:5C7A:FA16 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Each sample is marked with where it came from. Many of the samples were from the market itself. I would suggest you read the paper more closely, or stick to secondary sources. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are those not the same samples from the Worobey Paper? 2600:8804:6600:45:8976:A77A:5C7A:FA16 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears many of them overlap, since they were taken from similar sources. But they are not identical. Why is that relevant? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In Pekar they claim the market was the site of origin, not just a super spreader locale. They seem to base this in part on a single sample of lineage A found on gloves in the market. 2600:1700:8660:E180:1C84:F18:DF42:D527 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's not my interpretation of Pekar at all. Their claim that the market was the site of origin is based on the fact that two independent lineages, both A and B, have samples which are sourced in or around the market. Lineage B early samples are almost entirely FROM the market itself, whereas lineage A's early samples are from individuals who worked or lived within close proximity to the market (much MUCH closer than any of the proposed lab sites). I would consider your interpretation reductionist to the point of absurdity. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Worobey, Pekar, and colleagues sound rather less assured now than they did back in February. Ronald Bailey, a professional journalist, picks up on this trend. (Novella, a professional neurologist, apparently didn't, or may not have been interested.)
 * See Bailey, "Study: Huanan Market in Wuhan Was the 'Epicenter' of COVID-19 Outbreak", Reason, 27 July 2022:
 * -Dervorguilla (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I wouldn't consider Reason.com reliable for this content. See WP:RSP: Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear you, Shibbolethink. Yet WP:RSP tells us that most editors would consider it reliable for this content. The linked guideline (WP:BIASED) explains that "reliable sources are not required to be … unbiased or objective." More at WP:RSP#GREL:
 * {{legend|#DDFFDD|Yes Check Circle.svg Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team.}} -Dervorguilla (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Reason doesn't have expertise in this area (Science reporting and analysis). Nor does Bailey (as a professional journalist). It's not a subject matter publication, and the author is not a subject matter expert. It's Bailey interpreting primary publications through the lens of a WaPo journalist. So it's even more diluted... — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your comment seems to contradict published facts. Bailey's professional title is "Science Correspondent". HarperCollins chose one of his science pieces for its series The Best American Science and Nature Writing (2004).
 * Also, if you read past his article's subheadline you find that he quotes high-quality sources not found in the WaPo story. (He gives those sources 105 words; WaPo, 42.) -Dervorguilla (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * He has no degree in a scientific discipline. His closest qualification is a BA in economics from 1976, but this is a far cry from virology. This man has about as much qualification to comment on this topic as any science journalist. He has no specialized expertise in virology or epidemiology. It is a recognized fact that journalists in general are unreliable for scientific topics (see WP:SCIDEF (News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise and WP:NEWSORG (Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics)).The discipline here is not "science." It's "virology." Hence, Bailey is not a subject-matter expert by any reasonable meaning of the term. In fact, what Bailey's history shows us is that he is likely very biased on this topic which has lots of political influence. He is a self-described libertarian who has published books such as Ecoscam, and other pieces in which he espouses an unrestrained exploitation narrative supporting continued harvesting of Earth's natural resources, despite current scientific evidence supporting a continually decreasing reservoir of same. Since much of the zoonotic argument boils down to 'we are eroding natural ecology, causing increased interaction of animal virus reservoirs with humans, increasing the likelihood of zoonosis,'    I would consider Bailey exactly the opposite of who we should be consulting on the likelihood of zoonosis.Ultimately, this debate back and forth is likely to go nowhere. If you want to use Bailey to contradict parts of this article, I suggest you take it up at WP:RSN, where I can promise I will make the same argument. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You object (aggressively) to Bailey's work "supporting continued harvesting of Earth's natural resources". Thank you for this disclosure. -Dervorguilla (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you appear to assume my position, allow me to correct it: I object to any acceleration or continued harvesting (at the same level) of earth's expendable non-renewable resources which are in limited abundance. Such as coal, natural gas, fossil fuels. I support increased renewable technologies to make up the gap, and to eventually replace non-renewables, as we continue to decelerate and disincentivize their use. This is also the position of earth's largest body of scholarly experts on climate change: and thus it is also Wikipedia's position. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You argue that we should deprecate science writer Ronald Bailey's views for overrepresenting an "anti-China environmental-skeptic viewpoint". Yet you're now citing an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that highlights "current unsustainable development patterns". While the IPCC may not openly blame China, Wikipedia can (and does). Per WP:DUE we can safely represent both "anti-China" viewpoints in this article. -Dervorguilla (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I also blame the Chinese government for its role in making the pandemic worse, and for not doing its part in combatting climate change. I also blame them for not regulating the bushmeat/ exotic animal market (e.g. alt med products, exotic foods, etc). The difference is that we care about IPCC's opinion on climate change (and China) since multiple RSes cover it. We don't care about Bailey's opinions because RSes don't care. Because, again, he has no relevant expertise. This is going in circles, and seems to be a lot more about having an argument than about improving the article. So this is where I stop replying. If you think Bailey deserves inclusion here, get consensus here or at RSN. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 09:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Fort Detrick
There's no way in which the current section is "background". A mention of the Fort Detrick 2019 incident could go in the "prior lab leak" part of background. Everything else about it belongs in "China-US relations". Sennalen (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. I moved it into a subsection of China-US relations. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Reverts on Background#Prior lab leak incidents
The purpose of that section is to give an overview of known challenges involved in pathogen containment. It is not a place to insert new evidence about the origins of SARS Cov2. It is not a place for background on other conspiracy theories. Taking a section formed of peer-reviewed science and adding one claim about a conspiracy theory so "conspiracy theory" can be added to the section title is terribly transparent PoV pushing. Sennalen (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Uhmmmmm what are you talking about? Nothing in the reverts mentions the words "conspiracy theory." It's about the 2007 foot and mouth outbreak. Which actually happened. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood the sequence of edits and reverts. Sennalen (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with Sennalen that this section's purpose is "to give an overview of known challenges involved in pathogen containment."
 * Artika and Ma'roef (Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine, 2017) seems to fit well here. This journal's 2017 Impact Score was 1.95; and much of this review relates directly to our article's historical context (more specifically, pathogen containment).
 * On 3 August 2022, Alexbrn removed this and 5 other references dated 2004–2017. (5 remain in our article.) His 3 edit summaries: cut WP:OR, source makes no mention of the SCV2 "lab leak"; Also original research; cu[t] more WP:OR.
 * These changes may be reverted. While a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. (See WP:EDITWAR.) -Dervorguilla (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We should definitely err on the side of WP:PRESERVEing journal citations, if not indeed everything in the status quo. should more clearly specify how any of it constituted OR. Sennalen (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it make no mention of the "lab leak" COVID stuff - the connection between the source and this topic is OR. Alexbrn (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not require a source to establish a connection between the Covid-19 lab leak hypothesis and the general concept of a lab leak. WP:MNA. Sennalen (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It does, because Wikipedia reflects knowledge in source, not "connections" Wikipedia editors have made. Analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources is explicitly prohibited by policy. A 2017 source cannot be used to make statements about the "background" to the lab leak other than by the mechanism of original research (unless some other secondary RS makes that connection). The is Wikipedia 101. Alexbrn (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the implied conclusion? Sennalen (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That this incident is relevant "background". Whose idea is that? Just Wikipedia editors. Alexbrn (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's part of what editors do. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, with articles on particular words, nor is the scope of an article a kind of claim that comes from a source. Editorial judgement determines the scope of an article, along with some particular policies:
 * WP:N "Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability."
 * WP:SUMMARYSTYLE "Each subtopic article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in the parent article. It also contains a link back to the parent article, and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles."
 * The article Palomino is free to use a source that just talks about Horses, and that's completely routine makining necessary assumptions. We could use any source in the "Prior lab leak" section that we could use on the page Laboratory-acquired infection, so long as it's providing meaningful context and not just WP:COATRACKing. You're having angst that if the reader sees some of these sources, they might start to sympathize with a PoV you don't like. That's the wrong state of mind to bring, and you should step back. Sennalen (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur. But we still ought to acknowledge the stipulation in WP:OR, note a: Articles that currently name zero references ... may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that each point is supported by some (unnamed) RS.
 * That's why I'm bringing the "Cited by" tab to that editor's attention. -Dervorguilla (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do hear you, Alexbrn. You're making the point that adding this material "serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves" — namely, that the added material is directly related to our article topic. If you check, though, you can see where these sources display "Cited by" tabs. And those tabs show reliable sources that do clearly state just that.
 * Likewise, the references at our SARS-CoV-2 article include Artika & Ma'roef, "Laboratory Biosafety for Handling Emerging Viruses," 2017; Wong et al., "Global Epidemiology of Bat Coronaviruses," 2019; and Braun & Sauter, "Furin‐Mediated Protein Processing…", 2019. You can check their "Cited by" tabs, too. -Dervorguilla (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When I inserted the reference to Artika & Ma'roef my only criteria was that it was the newest MEDRS that addressed both lab leaks and the handling of emerging viruses. A review article on these two topics is not likely to be updated for at least a couple of years, so we are stuck with it to use it in background sections of Wikipedia. If you read their review they do make lots of mentions to the same class of virus of SARS-CoV-2: SARS-CoV (now called SARS-CoV-1), and lots of mentions of BSL facilities (the same class as of WIV).  Should we erase from the background section of an article about SARS-CoV-2 and WIV a top MEDRS review that talks about SARS-Cov-1 and BSL Labs? In my opinion, no, the background it provides to one can be reasonably expected to extend to the other. Now, a valid concern implicit in  Alexbrn edits is that some virologist might be working on a review of lab leaks, and they could be influenced by perusing this wiki page and seeing a tiny mention of Artika & Ma'roef might bias their search, but I highly doubt it.  I understand that Alexbrn can not guess why I made the connection and then went bold to remove the source.  He could also directly have asked me or asked in the talk page, which is not as bold, but can ultimately lead to a similar outcome of discussing the rationale for our edits.  Finally, note that the explicit conclusion in Artika & Ma'roef is "To successfully control emerging viruses, knowledge of many key aspects of their pathogenicity, molecular characteristics and information on factors causing efficient person-to-person spread, viral immunology and immunogenetics is critical. This is a challenging task, and the roles of the laboratory in diagnosis and research of emerging viruses are indispensable.".  Sounds like they would be in favor of letting the Wuhan lab do the "critical study" of viruses. If anything, as I view them, the authors should be considered opposed to the lab-leak-believers attacks on WIV, as long as the studies done there are performed safely.  Forich (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple. When writing about the "background" to this (or any topic) Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources are saying about the "background" to the topic. It is not a space for editors to decide for themselves what the background is, using sources which do not mention it. Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source. Alexbrn (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a reasonable expectation that each and every one of those source additions is supported by some other unnamed reliable source citing the added source as background to this topic. (See WP:OR.)
 * Are you willing to acknowledge this fundamental point?
 * If not, are you willing to use PubMed's "Cited by" tab to support your removing those added sources? -Dervorguilla (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If that "expectation" is not met, unsourced material may be removed per WP:V ("any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material"). I think it's unlikely any source mentions the foot and mouth outbreak as "background" to the lab leak conjecture. As to "cited by", there is no general rule for its relevance: each case would need to be looked at carefully (something can be cited to dismiss it, for example). Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I would add that it may be UNDUE. If no RSes about the lab leak mention the foot and mouth outbreak, and we are including it, it could constitute both OR and UNDUE material. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think 2007 hoof&mouth is probably undue, but the general notion of lab leaks as background is still not OR for the reasons I gave above. Sennalen (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Some additional items that deserve consensus

 * Natural, uncontrolled zoonotic transmission in the wild, while considered most likely, has not been proven to be the origin of the pandemic.
 * There is scientific consensus that transmission was through an intermediate animal rather than directly from bats to humans, but its species or geographic region has not been identified.
 * The Wuhan wet market has not been proven to be the origin of the pandemic, and there is evidence of earlier cases in people unrelated to it.
 * Though considered less likely than zoonotic transmission in the wild, none of the following are considered disproven, impossible, or pseudoscientific:
 * Accidental zoonotic transfer between laboratory animals kept in proximity with one another
 * Serial passage through laboratory animals as a deliberate experiment leading to SARS-like strains effective against different species
 * Transmission from a laboratory animal to a researcher

Sennalen (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a highly publicised effort to prematurely and without evidence label lab leak hypotheses as conspiracy theories.

Support all points. Some established authorities apparently would now concur that disseminating this information more broadly may encourage Beijing to be more forthcoming. Cf. "Study: Huanan Market Was 'Epicenter'", by science correspondent Ronald Bailey: "In June, the World Health Organization urged the Chinese government ... to allay speculations about lab leaks by being more forthcoming about the work on coronavirus viruses undertaken at the Wuhan Institute... The world is still waiting to hear from them." Not just conspiracy theorists: the world. -Dervorguilla (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should defer to reliable sources, rather than editor opinions. Important to know that the Bailey quote referenced is likely not-RS per WP:RSP: Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Reason piece is sourced to a Washington Post article that supports several of Sennalen's suggestions. - Palpable (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, let's see what WP:RSP really says about Reason: That linked guideline (WP:BIASED) says, "reliable sources are not required to be … unbiased or objective." So whether it's news or opinion, Bailey's article may well be a reliable source here. -Dervorguilla (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bailey is just quoting the WaPo article, and the WaPo is a much better source in any case. It is more reliable and less biased than either Reason or SBM. - Palpable (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bailey's review quotes relevant peer-reviewed articles by Chan and Zhan and Sander et al., whom Achenbach (at WaPo) doesn't mention. You may have misread Bailey or Achenbach. -Dervorguilla (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake, thank you for the polite correction. Still, it might be possible to avoid the RS argument by finding a top quality source that cites those papers. - Palpable (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's quite misleading to call Bailey's article a "review" since it neither peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal. Something like this requires WP:PARITY, e.g. a source of equal quality to the ones we have. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, my use of the term "review" doesn't "mislead" in any way. Just look at our article: it's got seven references to MIT Technology Review! In context, "review" plainly means "a critical evaluation". (Moreover, HarperCollins picked one of Bailey's many high-quality reviews for its series Best American Science and Nature Writing.)
 * Maybe we can make this discussion more concise by being less creative in our definition-writing? -Dervorguilla (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, here's concise: Bailey is not a subject-matter expert in matters of Virology or Epidemiology by any stretch of the imagination.If we were to shove his views into the article, it would violate WP:DUE as I cannot see any scientific RSes which respect his opinion on matters of virology. It would violate WP:NPOV as it would over-represent a libertarian anti-China environmental-skeptic viewpoint. It would violate WP:MEDRS and WP:PARITY as it would put this non-expert non-peer-reviewed news article on a pedestal worthy of contradicting published science. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "It would over-represent a ... anti-China environmental-skeptic viewpoint." Yet anti-China viewpoints were systemically under-represented on Wikipedia during the time this article was getting rewritten and (in August 2021) renamed.
 * Relevant history: Chris Vallance, "Wikipedia blames pro-China infiltration for bans," BBC News, 16 September 2021. -Dervorguilla (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Chris Vallance's view of Wikipedia means very little. But worth mentioning: the article you link is about the Chinese language Wikipedia and not this one. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From the article lead:
 * Wikipedia has suffered an "infiltration" that sought to advance the aims of China, … the Wikimedia Foundation told BBC News… In July, the Hong Kong Free Press reported "battles between competing editors" over articles describing political events.
 * Some of those pro-China keyboard warriors apparently had accounts on both "Chinese-language Wikipedia" and this one. They're now banned from this site, too. -Dervorguilla (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Point 1 is irrelevant, as we do not currently say (nor have we ever said) in the article that the zoonotic origin is proven.Point 2 is already in the article, we do not need consensus on it. It's also mostly irrelevant to the lab leak theory.Point 3 is sourced to a news article published in March 2021. This is now outdated, as shown in the Pekar article among other sources : "Lineage B has been the most common throughout the pandemic and includes all eleven sequenced genomes from humans directly associated with the Huanan market, including the earliest sampled genome, Wuhan/IPBCAMS-WH-01/2019, and the reference genome, Wuhan/Hu-1/2019 (hereafter ‘Hu-1’) (5), sampled on 24 and 26 December 2019, respectively. The earliest lineage A viruses, Wuhan/IME-WH01/2019 and Wuhan/WH04/2020, were sampled on 30 December 2019 and 5 January 2020, respectively." We do not have any samples earlier than PBCAMS-WH-01. And it's from the market. One could say there "may" have been earlier cases, but it is entirely speculation.Point 4 is contradicted by several of our sources, which describe serial passage as unlikely to the point of pseudoscience, and the others as entirely speculative with no evidence in support. Pseudoscience is a word often used to describe unproven theories with poor acceptance among relevant experts. (e.g. the moon landing hoax, bigfoot, etc) We do not have evidence of Bigfoot, we do not have evidence to disprove bigfoot. it's still pseudoscience. There's probably, honestly, more evidence for Bigfoot's existence than there is for the lab leak theory. It's a low bar.And, as an aside, this is edging towards "discussion of the topic" rather than "discussion of the article". What alterations to the article text would you suggest, @Sennalen? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Point 3: From Worobey et al 2022: the observation that the preponderance of early cases were linked to the Huanan market does not establish that the pandemic originated there.
 * Point 4: "Pseudoscience" does not mean unproven or minority view. As the term is "clearly defamatory" it should be used with care.
 * Conflating the "insufficient evidence but likely natural origin" position with the "engineered bioweapon" conspiracy theory is, at best, unhelpful. It seems like a straightforward distinction to me, what's the mixup? - Palpable (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we say anywhere in the article that the Market was the origin. And if so, then what is the point of bringing up 3? I won't answer any questions until you answer mine, which also happens to be the only relevant question on this page: What alterations to the article text would you suggest? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh? You directed your question to Sennalen and I don't presume to speak for her.
 * For what it's worth I think the statistical model suggesting multiple zoonotic spillovers is worth including, as are the statements of uncertainty like the one I quoted in Point 3. - Palpable (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, both Sennalen and Palpable are discussing article focus (per our TALKDONTREVERT policy). -Dervorguilla (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The section was motivated by the box "Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus" at the top of the talk page and in particular the linking of WP:NOLABLEAK in a way that might seem like an official endorsement. These are some countervailing points I thought people should bear in mind. That doesn't necessarily mean all these new points need to have RfCs and go in the box, but I by starting this discussion I wanted to shake the tree and see what falls out. Sennalen (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, well some relevant points re: changing the consensus or adding some:1) keep in mind that multiple repetitive RFCs is a component of WP:TE. We're not there yet, just advising you on the future direction of RfCs. 2) Keep in mind that any such consensus is about analysis of the opinions of relevant experts not our personal opinions as wikipedia editors. It doesn't really matter what you personally think, it matters what the expert consensus is. As far as I can tell, that has not changed, except to become even more supportive of zoonosis.3) Make sure to run any such RFC on a communal space or at least advertise it across relevant articles, and follow the relevant guidelines on making an RfC impartial, descriptive, and wide-ranging in its options. 4) Before Until you run an RfC, this is a waste of time and you likely won't get an accurate picture of the overall sentiment among relevant editors, given that lack of widespread input. This is absolutely not the talk space to have that discussion, given it is a much less-subscribed talk page. 5) Have a great day! /signing off (edited 03:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)) —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Making real progress here! It sounds like these specific items all ought to pass:
 * [1]. Uncontrolled zoonotic transmission in the wild, while considered most likely, has (still) not been proven to be the origin of the pandemic.
 * [4]. Neither of the following is considered disproven or pseudoscientific:
 * (a) Zoonotic transfer between laboratory animals kept in proximity;
 * (c) Transmission from a laboratory animal to a researcher.
 * [5]. There was a well-publicized effort to label lab-leak hypotheses as conspiracy theories.
 * -Dervorguilla (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion has not gone down any paths that make me think a new RfC is warranted at this time. Sennalen (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd have to concur. -Dervorguilla (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I am perplexed by the claim that there is an attempt to entertain an opinion that experts take anything but a wet market origin of COVID-19 as likely. If that's too dense for you, try the podcast with the author: Does any legitimate expert still harbor doubts after this? I can't find them. I think the article should reflect that the study has been done and the results are just about as conclusive as you can get in science. jps (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * They've got ~150 samples of early cases and nothing about the actual spillover. Science can definitely get more conclusive than that.
 * The draft of Worobey et al had a "dispositive" claim similar to your "conclusive" and it didn't survive peer review. Presumably the reviewer who insisted on that was a legitimate expert even if we don't know their name.
 * NB I am not arguing for a lab leak, please don't shoot me. - Palpable (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's well-covered in the recent SBM piece;. Removal of "legal" terminology from scientific papers is a feature of peer-review, it says, and NBD. Alexbrn (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They didn't just remove the word "dispositive", as Gorski might have found if he could be bothered to read the preprint . Here's the full sentence (all italics mine):
 * "Together, these analyses provide dispositive evidence for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 via the live wildlife trade and identify the Huanan market as the unambiguous epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic."
 * and the weakened version that made it through peer review:
 * "While there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred via the live wildlife trade in China, and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic."
 * Here's another claim from the preprint:"Collectively, these results provide incontrovertible evidence that there was a clear conduit, via susceptible live mammals, for the zoonotic emergence of SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan market towards the end of 2019."
 * and what Science was willing to publish:
 * "The sustained presence of a potential source of virus transmission into the human population in late 2019, plausibly from infected live mammals sold at the Huanan market, offers an explanation of our findings and the origins of SARS-CoV-2."
 * For a guy who portrays himself as a Defender of Science, Gorski has surprisingly little respect for peer review (but an immense fondness for insults). Citing his blog to support claims that a refereed journal wouldn't publish is a travesty of WP:SECONDARY. - Palpable (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows reliable sources (like SBM) and others. The knowledge from such sources is that it's conspiracy theorists who are desperately picking at the peer-review process, with little understanding. That's what Wikipedia needs to be reflecting, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Lab leak isn't a conspiracy! pls don't throw toxic labels when discussing a valid hypothesis. SARS2 leaked from Taiwan BL4 lab in late 2021 for example. Such labeling is simply bad faith wrt covid origin inquiry. HL3133 (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll just note that in the above exchange, the people arguing that the paper was less than conclusive did so on the basis of some contortions that did not deal substantively with the content that was linked. Who cares what word they decided upon? The paper speaks for itself as does the one on genetic lineages. What is left? This reminds me a lot of when the Berkeley Earth results came out and the people who did not expect that they would confirm anthropogenic climate change simply argued that it wasn't conclusive. Well, this is as good as science gets. If you don't recognize that, then what are we doing here? jps (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Very well said. That's the difference between science and pseudoscience. Continuing to endorse it beyond what reason and the evidence are telling us. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thankfully this is not as good as science gets. Compare to the evidence for vaccine safety which is based on more like 1e9 observations. Or compare to just about anything in physics.
 * The idea that you can just substitute certainty for likelihood without changing the meaning of a claim is bizarre, in another context I doubt you would endorse that position. I underestimated how dug in people are around this issue and it does sound like further discussion here is a waste of time. - Palpable (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * substitute certainty for likelihood hits the nail on the head, and when people compromise on source quality to do it, that is PROFRINGE behavior. Sennalen (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is essentially science denial at this point. Where did you get your degrees, Palpable and Sennalen? jps (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I bailed ABD from a top tier computer science PhD program and went into industry. My work has often involved computational logic and I've built things you use. Statistical inference is a more recent interest.
 * Since we're comparing qualifications, your own career as a scientist appears to have culminated in a teaching gig at a community college.
 * I won't respond to further aspersions here and recommend that others do the same. - Palpable (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I recommend you stop your WP:ADVOCACY. I known not from whence it comes. jps (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

New source
offering a comprehensive overview of this whole sage, now that it's over: This can usefully be used to accurify the article. Alexbrn (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * While a clear and comprehensive mainstream review is good, I'm not quite so optimistic as to say "it's over" by any means. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's part of the point (from the source: "If there’s one thing that’s true about conspiracy theorists, it’s that evidence that would tend to refute their hypotheses doesn’t persuade them to question their beliefs"). The "who shot JFK" question isn't over for the crank-o-sphere (also moon landings, Bigfoot, did the holocaust happen, etc.); so will it be, just the same, for the lab leak. As a respectable encyclopedia, however, Wikipedia reflects the sane reality as accepted in mainstream sources. Alexbrn (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not itself MEDRS and wears its bias on its sleeve, so it's not time for grave-dancing yet. However, I think with the addition of this secondary commentary, it's fully time to get over the excessive scruples about whether to include Pekar et al. (2022)., and indeed trim some existing fat (I'm thinking particularly the several invocations of Ebright). Sennalen (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I do have some issues with Ebright's inclusion here, particularly that we are counting him as a subject matter expert way above and beyond his actual expertise. Is he an expert in biosafety? Yes. Is he an expert in literally every aspect of biosafety including dentist's offices? Absolutely not, the man has no idea what he's talking about there, especially when it comes to healthcare. The difference between a dentist's office and a real BSL-2+/BSL-3 is so great that it's an absurd comparison. Your dentist's office doesn't have an ante-room. it doesn't have tyvek cover-alls, it doesn't have N95s, goggles, PAPRs all the time. And don't get me started on the equipment itself. In a real BSL-2+/3 you have to have very specific furniture that can never absorb any liquid, and everything needs to be able to be chemically sterilized or autoclaved. That comment just made me so mad, as someone who has spent literally thousands of hours in these facilities. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In a real BSL-2+/3 ... Maybe that's why Canada doesn't have a historical record of serious lab leaks? -Dervorguilla (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI we don't need MEDRS for this. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say Gorski's is an excellent overview of the current state of the debate. Unfortunately there are quite a few components of the lab leak theory set of ideas which are inherently not falsifiable (or so difficult and unlikely to ever be disproven despite an overall lack of new or convincing positive evidence), and thus will live on in the minds of their most fervent supporters. We have witnessed the birth of a new quasi-religious ideology, my friends. Anyway, I think we could probably use this as reason enough to expand on mentions of the market itself and sequencing. And perhaps on the opinions of relevant experts as there are a few choice quotes. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As with the sources, we should really start viewing this topic as what once was a question that morphed into a social phenomenon with a conspiratorial rump. In that, it is similar to some other topics (e.g. "does ivermectin cure COVID?" or "can cold fusion generate power?"): the science (always skeptical), finally takes a firm step to the side; the True Believers don't. Alexbrn (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It will also likely become easier once secondary research (including SAGO et al) affirms and validates this study's findings. It looks like a strong primary source, but a primary source nonetheless. Of course, that's back to the difference between 'requiring ever more elaborate scenarios for a lab leak to fit the circumstances' and 'definitively identifying the the precise zoonotic origin'. The former is a lower burden. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * SBM is a secondary source for the primary research discussed (as well as for other material it analyzes). Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * and since the consensus is that pandemic origins are not inherently WP:BMI, then we can use this as a secondary source! I was so opposed to that determination originally, but I do think it's overall a good thing. We need to be careful about what aspects we use and don't use, though. some parts may still be BMI. But I think the determination of an epicenter likely, by itself, is not. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By "secondary research", I meant secondary WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources. The analysis from SAGO and others will be more reliable, even though Gorski is reliable enough here and now per WP:PARITY. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to use SBM for hard biomedicine in this case, but for the sociological aspects (e.g. how the conspiracy theorists are doubling down) it's a golden source. Alexbrn (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that this article is (in many ways) about the "sociological aspects" of the lab-leak theory. -Dervorguilla (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. This was hardly a systematic review of opinions (i.e. the quotes from Twitter are cherry-picked). And the argument presented goes like this:
 * People are unconvinced by the new evidence
 * Conspiracy theorists will never be convinced by evidence
 * therefore
 * People who are unconvinced by the new evidence are conspiracy theorists
 * Surely there is a reliable source with a better grasp of modus ponens. - Palpable (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The source is totally OK because the "logic" you claim is presented in the SBM article does not exist there but only in your head. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I just read the article in its entirety, and I didn't see any reference to the pseudo-syllogism proposed by @Palpable. I didn't see the logic of the piece flow that way, either. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can go into it further at RSN if necessary. - Palpable (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's get to the point, comrades: NEWSORG tells us that opinion pieces are rarely reliable for statements of fact. So we can't use Gorski's opinions to "accurify" this article (or any other). All we can do is present his viewpoint (in conjunction with, say, Bailey's; see discussion). -Dervorguilla (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * SBM is not a newsorg. It's a WP:GREL source specializing in fringe science. Exactly on-point for our purposes. If you want to argue that SBM is not generally reliable, you'll need to overturn the established consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Putting Bailey on the same level as Gorksi is just hilarious. Gorski is a bonafide expert in fringe and minority scientific views, WP:RSN and WP:RSP approved. WP:SBM has no such additional considerations like Reason.com — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Gorski's academic credentials and professional experience are limited to oncology. Read his self-description. Nowhere does he imply that he's an expert on virology or infectious disease generally or on sociological aspects of those fields (or most others). He writes about pseudoscience because he's "interested" in it.
 * (Not really germane here, but he does seem to have a talent for publishing provocative opinion pieces that somehow get people - including Wikipedia editors - to embellish his credentials.) -Dervorguilla (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He's an expert on cranks and crankery, so ideal for the cranks and crankery around this topic. SBM is a WP:GREL for fringe topics. Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "A WP:GREL for fringe topics". It sounds like I may need to get more specific. On this site, the manufactured-bioweapon idea is specifically treated as a fringe "conspiracy theory"; the lab-leak idea is treated as a legitimate scenario: English Wikipedia is implicitly acknowledging that these agencies are the real experts on global biolab security (versus "crankery"). They have trained staff who make their living investigating such matters. -Dervorguilla (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's your view. Wikipedia reflects sources not editors' views. Given what's happened, lab leak support is now "implicitly" crankery. That is why the article needs an update. This progression is well covered by the SBM source, actually. Alexbrn (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The scientific consensus is that the wet market was the most likely origin. That has been said just so, with an air of collegiality. On the other hand, an urgent drive to bring to bear labels and vituperation is a mark of a zealot. Sennalen (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If we just stick to the good sources we'll be fine. I don't think there's any "vituperation" from them; more weary resignation that this is how conspiracy theories always play out. (In fact the "vituperation" comes more from the cranks themselves with their "Despicable Fauci" narratives and so on; we should cover this too). Wikipedia needs to cover how conspiracy theorists have reacted to the reality and how they are doubling down on their delusions, as described in good sources. For NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that would be false balance. Sennalen (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Against what? Are there sources saying the conspiracy theorists are not doubling down? If so, produce them. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that lab leak is less likely. There is no consensus for the conspiracy theory label. You propose to bypass that with a circular argument? - Palpable (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about a "label"? But there are conspiracy theorists (obviously) who support the lab leak and one of our best sources describing what they're doing (doubling down, attacking Fauci, attacking scientists, cherry-picking, denying things have moved on, etc.). Wikipedia neutrally reflects such relevant knowledge. What the handful of relevant "scientists" say/do is another matter. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you want this to be an article about American politics instead of a minority scientific viewpoint. - Palpable (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Couldn't give a shit about politics over the ocean, but I notice a lot of people seem to think everything is "American politics", even basic knowledge. What we should all want this article to be "about" is what our WP:BESTSOURCES are saying about the topic. That's it. Alexbrn (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Anthony Stephen Fauci MD … is … serving as … the Chief Medical Advisor to the President," says Wikipedia. So, personal attacks on Fauci are (as a rule) directly related to American politics. -Dervorguilla (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fascinating; if you think that's worth elucidating then find the sources (not sure which "side" of US politics he is meant to be on?) However the SBM source says the crazies just think he is "despicable" and somehow involved in a cover-up with NIH/Big Pharma. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Detailing all the ways in which fringe people are wrong is undue outside an article devoted to them, such as COVID-19 misinformation. Sennalen (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If the on-point quality sources cover it, it is by definition WP:DUE; necessary for NPOV in fact. It is not "misinformation" what the conspiracy theorists are doing, it's actual information/knowledge of the kind Wikipedia must summarize. Alexbrn (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet that COVID-19 misinformation article mentions conspiracy theorists eight times! "What the conspiracy theorists are doing" is directly related to that topic.
 * Those "crazies'" personal attacks on "Despicable Fauci" may be indirectly related to the theory proposing SARS-CoV-2 came from a Wuhan lab. But sources must be directly related to the topic of the article. (NOR.)
 * More at NPOV#BALASP about minor aspects and overall significance to the topic. -Dervorguilla (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Great links, all you need to do now is understand them! If RS directly relates things then Wikipedia follows, and an article is often a melange of multiple notable topics in any case. How the conspiracy theorists are now denying reality is a major aspect of this story per many sources. If this article gets too long you can always propose splitting stuff out, but I doubt that will every happen. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of us do understand this simple point: the NOR pillar delimits the scope of the DUE policy to the universe of sources directly related to the topic of the article.
 * And most reliable sources that mention your "Despicable Fauci" trope don't seem to mention Wuhan. Try checking through the Startpage Search Results. -Dervorguilla (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We reflect the WP:BESTSOURCES. SBM is probably our strongest source, and what is "directly related" is decided by such expert sources, not by your inexpert search results. Alexbrn (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We do indeed favor those best respected and most authoritative reliable sources. (NPOV#BESTSOURCES.) And SBM isn't really perceived as fitting in that category. Some likely reasons are listed at RS#SOURCETYPES:
 * SBM may be controversial within the relevant field. None of its staff have ever published an academic journal article on infectious disease (or sociology, or psychology).
 * Or, SBM may just be largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse. If you try the library for reputable journal articles, most academic librarians will tell you they've never heard of it. -Dervorguilla (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You can make up your own criteria, but don't confuse them with the consensus on Wikipedia, where SBM is a WP:GREL and perfect for fringe science. It's the only such strong source we have which is both dedicated to the "lab leak" and up-to-date. If other sources come along (like review articles) great, but until then this is our best source. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Those criteria are taken from the RS guideline on selecting sources. You're using the RSP essay, which says (right in the nutshell) that context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list.
 * Also, Palpable has pointed to a less controversial and more widely cited BESTSOURCE – namely Achenbach, in WaPo. -Dervorguilla (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Emphatically disagree that anything from the WaPo (a paper which regularly publishes conspiracy-laden opinion pieces masquerading as journalism) is less controversial. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do hear you, Shibbolethink! Still, most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable. See WP:WAPO for those discussions. And our article does cite it 15 times. -Dervorguilla (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. SBM is a tertiary source, merely summarizing other secondary sources; it's not worthy of inclusion, and would require attribution if included. For the record, there's no such thing as an expert on cranks and crankery; there are domain experts, and nonexperts. "Dunking on cranks" cannot be done intelligently or with integrity without domain expertise, since any lies will contain elements of truth, and only an expert is qualified to sift through all claims and separate the true from the false. DFlhb (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It most often refers to primary material, making it more WP:SECONDARY in nature. You're welcome to try and overturn the consensus it's a reliable source for facts. It's certainly useful here for some good overview statements about the lab leak stuff. Bon courage (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that you are right on SBM being secondary; I retract what I said right after that. I fully agree that it's reliable for factual general statements. DFlhb (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about a theory which has fringe aspects and unfalsifiable minority viewpoint aspects. It is DUE to cover this part of the content given that several articles about the Lab leak theory cover this aspect. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The SAGO report discusses data that would falsify. - Palpable (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like your second point just got (inadvertently) supported 🙁 -Dervorguilla (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't think we have enough data on that yet. What we have is epidemiological and sequencing evidence that it came from animals at the market. That's it. Maybe raccoon dogs, maybe bats, maybe civets, maybe others. As an aside, this is basically all we had for SARS-1 to call it civet cats. Samples positive on civet cat cages. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Kahn discusses falsifiability, as well as the following: "Gao et al. reported that there were no positive animal samples at the Huanan market. They further reported that there was no correlation between the locations of the animal sellers in the market or the locations with the highest densities of humans and the locations of the positive environmental samples in the market. Based on these findings, Gao et al suggested that the market “acted as an amplifier,” with infections being brought into the market by humans infected elsewhere."
 * The Gao paper is still in preprint. - Palpable (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, if you were not aware, the Bulletin is not generally considered a RS on Wikipedia. As to the quote you've provided...I think that rests entirely in how one defines "animal samples". Just a wild guess, but there is probably a good reason why Gao et al. is still in preprint. I would bet good money that some of the co-authors on Pekar and Worobey are some of Gao's peer reviewers at any journal worth its salt.Did you see how Pekar and Worobey had to change their language by the time they got published? That's no mistake, it's pretty common for peer review to work that way. Mark my words: the sentiments you linked will likely be heavily watered down by the time of publication. Either that or it will be published in a crappy non-respected journal which is A) not edited by virologists or B) not peer-reviewed. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Bulletin is not listed in RS/P so it doesn't sound like there is consensus on reliability. SAGO is probably a better source for falsification criteria anyway.
 * I did see how Pekar and particularly Worobey had to change their language. I hope you agree that nobody should be citing Gorski for claims that Worobey was forced to remove.
 * Yes, it will be interesting to see what the published version of Gao looks like. - Palpable (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Check WP:RSN archives. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Edward C. Holmes
End of lead:


 * These developments led virologist Edward C. Holmes to declare in The Conversation that "[t]he COVID lab leak theory is dead."

Holmes is a co-author on both papers; the current phrasing strongly implies that he is a neutral expert. This should be either clarified, or another expert should be named here if any equivalent statements have been made. DFlhb (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes you think he's not a "neutral expert"? Bon courage (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He's not neutral on his evaluation of paper's he'd co-authored. We could do something like "Virologist Edward C. Holmes, co-author on the studies, declared in The Conversation that "the COVID lab leak theory is dead". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We say he's the co-author already. And he's not evaluating the papers he's evaluating the lab leak stuff (which the papers do not address). I'd not be averse to add Gorksi's comparison, in reacting to the Science papers, of the lab theory to Monty Python's dead parrot, if we want an additional voice. Bon courage (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We indicate he's co-author at the end of the article, but not in the lede. We should be clear in the lede that the attributed claim comes from a study co-author, rather than a third party as one would most likely presume from the wording of the lede. Especially since Holmes falls below the et al boundary in both citations. I made the change in the lede. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: your first comment: do note, I am claiming that he is not neutral, not that he is not an expert.
 * Re: second comment: we say it at the very bottom of the article; I think the lead should be clear too. Though the context is obviously very different, I feel WP:MANDY applies to a degree: he is implicitly evaluating his own paper, since he is stating that the lab leak theory is dead based on his paper's findings (in These developments led virologist..., "these developments" refers to his own study)
 * The lead should at least clarify that he's a co-author if we're going to keep this sentence in; but ideally we can find another expert's view on the post-paper scholarly consensus. Gorski is fine, but I think a comparison to the dead parrot wouldn't belong in the lead but in the article; the last sentence of the lead should ideally be about the current consensus on the question, just not by a co-author touting his own findings. DFlhb (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed the lede. I've added a recent review article that cites the two papers as an extra "voice". See what you think. Bon courage (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good change. I still wasn't happy with "these developments led" since it wasn't clear that it was referring to the new evidence, not to the study; so I've added "new" in the previous sentence; hopefully that's better DFlhb (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Scientific American piece
This is out : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/ 2803:1800:510E:C5C7:18EE:639:2594:21AF (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC) forgot to sign in Forich (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Since March. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

source
perhaps there is something interesting for wikipedian english editors here

https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021.11.30-NAM-Daszak-Letter.pdf

the link for this is in this page https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/news/ec-republican-leaders-request-national-academy-of-medicine-investigate-ecohealth-alliance-president-peter-daszak-for-misconduct/ at the bottom "CLICK HERE to read the full letter to NAM Home Secretary Elena Fuentes-Afflick"

Vatadoshufrench 08:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Politicians gonna politicize. Would need some sane secondary coverage. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

on the page https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/news/ec-republican-leaders-request-national-academy-of-medicine-investigate-ecohealth-alliance-president-peter-daszak-for-misconduct/ there is another link interesting "CLICK HERE to read the Republican Leaders’ April 16, 2021 letter to Daszak." where it is said ""In 2020, Dr. Shi Zhengli of WIV published a genomic sequence for RaTG13. According to available information first published in 2016, RaTG13 is 96.2 percent similar to SARS-CoV- 2 and was gathered in 2012 from bat caves in the Yunnan Province, then. This sequence is the most similar to SARS-CoV2 that is publicly known. " . And another source https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09469 says it is the closest too. So the closest covid virus was created in 2016 in wuhan. It is not politic it is science. Science history. Vatadoshufrench 09:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No - whacky American politicians are not a reliable source for science. Otherwise we'd all be injecting bleach and cowering from Jewish space lasers. I'm sure in time there will be some reliable commentary on this political stunt, and that could well be of interest to us! Bon courage (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

note that politiciens have references in there letters too so you could just take sentences and verify with the references of the letters. sentences seems to have good references. I have verified some sentence with the references and sentences does not seems to lie. there is this too: http://www.normalesup.org/~vorgogoz/conferences/21-04-controversies- Vatadoshufrench 10:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

http://www.normalesup.org/~vorgogoz/conferences/21-04-controversies-SARS-CoV-2-part3-Mojiang-pneumonia.pdf Vatadoshufrench 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Appears to be a personal file stored on a university website, so similarly unreliable. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Furin cleavage site update
Garry (2022) says. Garry then inmediately counters this by saying that four extra aminoacids, not eight, were added, and other technical explanations that debunk the hyphotesis. My questions is if all of this already covered in this entry or is it worthy of mentioning? Forich (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a letter. Bon courage (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Use of the word conspiracy
The Fort Detrick theory is called a conspiracy theory however the term is not used for the rest of the article despite the introduction saying the Chinese lab leak theory has no supporting evidence. I propose adding the word conspiracy to the introduction of the article. If it has no supporting evidence than it falls under conspiracy theory.

In the alternative take out the word conspiracy from the Fort Detrick section to remain consistent. 2603:8081:4A00:B792:943B:5930:8B33:7DE4 (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * sounds good to remove conspiracy from Fort Detrick theory. 2600:1700:8660:E180:5016:B632:8AD1:4513 (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Fort Detrick, would be okay with adding that language for the original lab leak theory. It's come up before on this page and there was basically no consensus. I think there is extremely good evidence that Fort Detrick is a conspiracy theory in precisely that language. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"the COVID lab leak theory is dead".
Should we mention that Eddie Holmes was one of the first to suggest an artificial origin of sars2? " Eddie [Holmes], Bob [Garry], Mike [Farzan], and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory" 2600:1700:8660:E180:5016:B632:8AD1:4513 (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there independent, reliable, secondary sources which support this being relevant? AKA WP:DUE — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "After the coronavirus genome was sequenced, Dr. Holmes was puzzled to see some bits of genetic material that looked like they might have been put there through genetic engineering." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/21/health/covid-lab-leak-eddie-holmes.html 2600:1700:8660:E180:D045:5F80:2A52:F1BC (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dr. Holmes very recently participated in a podcast called This Week in Virology on 28 September 2022, and he himself says very clearly about the Proximal Origins paper (probably the first ever origins paper put out by virologists) that he co-authored back in early 2020 about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 (a paper which strongly argues in favor of the natural spillover hypothesis: "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible") that "it's just a paper... not a decree...not a government order....you can disagree with it.... it's been given this some sort of elevated status like this means that you can't talk about anything else...it's bizarre..."(it's on youtube v=5u94foNmpKE at 37:26). So on one hand, he just wrote that lab leak theory is "dead". On the other, he just said on a podcast that there is no restriction on "talking about anything else". I don't think even Dr. Holmes is in favor of suppressing any assertions about lab leak theory. He seems to be very confident in his expert opinion as a virologist and at the same time respectful to differing opinions (e.g. lab leak theory?) --Zaheen (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is WP:NOTAFORUM for general discussion. Bon courage (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Any Evidence for the Natural Origin Theory?
I see this article claims in the lead that there's no evidence for the lab leak theory, although it's beyond abundant and conclusive at this point. On the other other hand, is there even a scintilla of evidence for the natural origin theory? --2600:1700:B020:1490:9427:D713:7A5:2990 (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * From the cited source:
 * This article is not about "the natural origin theory". Bon courage (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)