Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 31

This is not a theory
This is a science-related article and should be properly called a hypothesis. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but no. Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the terminology we choose to use, the House Oversight Committee issued a press release on July 12, 2023. Where is a suitable place in the article to link this?  Fabrickator (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Political bloviation? no need to bother with it. Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere. TarnishedPathtalk 23:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in Conservapedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It should more correctly be denoted as a conspiracy theory. TarnishedPathtalk 23:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that "conspiracy theory" is probably the most accurate term at this point. A less critical term would be "idea." Calling it a "theory" is clearly wrong since this is a scientific issue and scientific theories are for well established processes like evolution or gravity. The word "hypothesis" is also unduly charitable, since in most iterations and forms the lab leak idea doesn't meet that bar either. -Darouet (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please cite your conspiracy theory claim from 2023 sources. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @TarnishedPath @Darouet Please read the thread Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 27 about moving the article from COVID-19 lab leak theory to COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy. The snowball consensus was to oppose such move. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You should note that the move request was withdrawn. TarnishedPathtalk 04:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We should note that it's a good thing when an editor proposes an idea, discovers that their idea has no support, and is willing to admit in public that there is no consensus for their idea (at this point in time). Being "withdrawn" doesn't mean that there's no consensus (or that the proposer has changed their own mind).  It just means that the proposer believes it pointless to continue the conversation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. Part of why I withdrew it was that I'd realised from some of the contributions that I'd stuffed up and suggested the wrong target. Someone after me opened a move request which suggested the target I would have suggested but someone saw fit to close that within 11 hours. Not to say that would have succeed but who knows with a bit of broad advertising amongst medial/science noticeboards. TarnishedPathtalk 23:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just noticed it was your proposal. You should note that at least 16 editors participated in the discussion and the vast majority opposed your proposal to change the name to include the word conspiracy. Not a single one directly supported it. The consensus was against moving the article from COVID-19 lab leak theory to COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I withdrew the proposal when I realised that I didn't even support it because I'd prefer another target after some of the reasoning for the votes. In any case consensus can change. TarnishedPathtalk 23:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we don't know how the covid origins investigation will evolve. The lab leak could be deprecated or it could be found it was the case. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We sort of do, from the sources. LL has been debunked, but its adherents will keep believing it because they are in thrall to conspiracist thinking, and will never be satisifed. We're currently at the 'there was a second shooter' phase of JFK assassination theories; theoretically possible but in practive, conspiracism. Bon courage (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not siding with the lab leak, but to play Devil's advocate, the same can be said of adherents of the zoonosis theory. After all they say the lab leak theory is a plan to create hate against the Chinese people and that it is racist. In other words, a conspiracy theory. They wouldn't be satisfied either if the lab leak gets consensus. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't WP:STRAWMAN. Sincerely, TarnishedPathtalk 04:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @TarnishedPath please don't start with inappropriate accusations against others who have a different opinion with you. We understand you are very partialized to a point of view regarding the covid origin and keep pushing your angle that the covid 19 lab leak is a conspiracy theory, regardless of the ample evidence given to you even in a move request you started. You are welcome to refute and point to reliable sources but don't make inappropriate accusations against others. Thanks. Thinker78  (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a strawman argument, though. Argue with people who are actually here and with the arguments they are actually making. MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Look up irony. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The only thing I'm partialized towards is evidence. In the meantime you might want to take onboard the advice of multiple editors. Kind Regards, TarnishedPathtalk 00:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And you should take onboard the advice of the administrator. Thanks. Thinker78  (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This misunderstands science. The zoonosis theory doesn't have 'adherents' (which is why there aren't bestselling books called 'COVID zoon! The truth revealed!"). Scientists just say where the evidence points, and if the evidence changes they follow that; on the other hand the LL mob are immune to evidence, as our sources say. Trying to say there is some kind of parity to this is textbook WP:GEVAL and so woulf fall afoul of our need for NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Even though most scientists side with the zoonosis theory, such position is likely in many of them not because their impartial research but rather due to the threats to their reputation, jobs, grants and livelihoods that represented for many of them exploring the lab leak theory when it was considered widely a conspiracy theory around the world.
 * In addition, it is very well known the politicization of the covid origins debate in many countries around the world and certainly the zoonosis theory very likely has adherents as is the case with any other theory, belief, or issue of big social impact. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This is probably our best source (scholarly, independent, well-published, recent, and specific to the question) and although it's in a book about conspiracy theories it calls LL the 'Lab Leak Hypothesis' even though it points out that strictly speaking it's 'hypotheses'. So yea, this article's title should be COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. But editors don't seem to like that? Bon courage (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also a heap of scholarly articles referring to it as a conspiracy theory but people don't like that because their favourite football team seems to think it should be investigated, nothing that the same government investigated alien landings and JFK conspiracy theories. TarnishedPathtalk 01:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Less commenting on the motives of other editors, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No reason to use four syllable words when two syllables work. And, it's not a science/math article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a good point, what does this really add, rather than just letters? Slatersteven (talk)
 * That misses the point. To call something a conjecture or a hypothesis is to use scientific jargon for an idea that is worthwhile investigating. Whilst the word theory is scientific jargon for an idea that has been thoroughly investigated it is also normal speech for any idea that hasn't been demonstrated to be true. It is often used as a pejorative word for a hare brained scheme. (Normal speech is the inverse of science jargon.) To call this idea a hypothesis is to give it far more importance than it deserves. OrewaTel (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In formal writing styles (e.g., in an encyclopedia), I think people have an expectation that the word theory will be used in ways that are similar to the theory of gravity rather than in ways that are similar to a sarcastic comment like "Well, now, that's a theory." The linguists won't claim that either uses are wrong, but only the former involves abstract thinking about a generalized phenomenon.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup
As it is, this article has a large number of redundant statements, many of them seemingly unnecessary. For example, here is what it says about "conspira": At this point, I have not even gotten a third of the way down the article, but already, virtually the exact same statement, referenced to the exact same source, has been repeated no less than five separate times. This is unnecessary, it's repetitive, it fails to convey information, it's unnecessary, and it's repetitive. It's insulting to readers to simply say the same thing over and over and over; they are capable of understanding something without it being said once per paragraph for the entire article. If we intend for this to be a useful encyclopedic resource, it needs to be written clearly and effectively.
 * 1) scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories.[18]
 * 2) arguments used in support of a laboratory leak are characteristic of conspiratorial thinking.[18]
 * 3) and this very closeness has made it easy for conspiracy theories to take root...[18]
 * 4) a lab leak typifies the kind of conjunction fallacy that is often observed feeding the beliefs of conspiracy theorists.[18]
 * 5) the proposed scenarios [...] are fed by pseudoscientific and conspiratorial thinking.[18]

Do you have an objection to this? jp×g🗯️ 07:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * We're talking about:
 * which is a recent scholarly book chapter devoted to LL, so one of the WP:BESTSOURCES, maybe the best source for this article.
 * The first mention is summary in the lede, so kind of necessary. That leaves 4. To a large extent the problem here is the rambling organisation of the article. NPOV requires us to call out WP:FRINGESUBJECTS ideas where they occur. Ideally, I'd like to see a article re-org so that this was less necessary. In your extracts above you also elide text which is germane to the source's use (e.g. the lack of falsifiability). Otherwise, perhaps the third and fourth uses might be carefully combined? Bon courage (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters whether the source is good or bad. I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that requires or suggests to repeat the same thing five times nearly verbatim in the first third of an article, regardless of how much it allows us to imply the subject is bad and for bad people; Wikipedia is not a blogging website. jp×g🗯️ 08:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Straw men crushed again. I'd expect good sources to feature prominently in article, and for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS to be qualified as necessary, yes. I'm not sure where you're getting 'bad people' from? Or blogging? Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage, not taking particular aim at you but I've argued elsewhere that this article is too long given the subject matter and that I have a preference for a massive haircut. Yet it keeps expanding. If we have segments like what @JPxG highlights, as much as I agree with the information as presented, it displays a large degree of duplication then I think that can be avoided. That's not too say the same source shouldn't be used in multiple places, however I think this article should be a hell of a lot more concise. TarnishedPathtalk 10:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, and as I suggest above the repetitive nature of the qualification of fringe ideas is a consequence of the way fringe ideas are scattered around. More generally the article is more trying to participate in (or arbitrate) the LL argument rather than leaning on what experts are saying from outside the feverish bubble. Look for example at the huge section on the 'Furin Cleavage Site'. I suspect the situation will only improve as more scholarly sources appear and we can phase out the weaker, more contemporaneous sources for a sober retrospective evaluation. But if you can think of a way to doing some serious cutting that would be good! Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My issue here is that this is a Wikipedia article about the "COVID-19 lab leak theory", so it seems like it should be about the "COVID-19 lab leak theory", i.e. the major claims made, whether they're true or false, and some explanation of why they're true or false. I don't understand what it means to "participate in the argument". I don't understand what it means for ideas to be "scattered around" or "feverish bubble". These seem like opinions, which are again more suited to an essay or a blog than to a Wikipedia article. jp×g</b>🗯️</b> 20:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They are opinions about the state of the article, which are appropriate to this Article Talk page. Why should they be taken off to a blog? If you think that structurally this article is good, then I respectfully disagree. Why is 'Developments in 2022' a subsection of 'Proposed scenarios' for example? Why is 'Political and govt opinion' part of the genetic modification section? This is what I mean by ideas being scattered around.As to 'participating in the argument', why are we saying things like (for many sentences) 'The CGG codon is one of several codons that translates into an arginine amino acid, and it is the least common arginine codon in human pathogenic betacoronaviruses' sourced to a non-MEDRS source that isn't about lab leaks? The article is trying to enter into the debate about genetic modification, rather than simply say what secondary sources say about the furin cleavage claims. An encyclopedic article should carry accepted knowledge about a topic, and the best way to achieve NPOV is to lean on the WP:BESTSOURCES. I would like to see greater reliance on high-quality secondary sources, less WP:NEWSPRIMARY reliance, less off-topic citation and a more coherent and tighter structure to the article Bon courage (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi JPxG, i understand what BC is saying with those phrases you quote and mostly share his opinions on the state of the article. What i don't understand is your conception or "issue" with the article, what it should be about with the "the major claims made, whether they're true or false". On the one hand that could be a perfectly reasonable statement, but it could also be a very pseudo-scientific approach to describing lab leak. While i do agree with many of your points above, and applaud the higher standards for content, i'm not sure that you are taking productive tack towards improving the article.
 * In my opinion this is a pretty useless article for the reader and think that has kind of been accepted by the reasonable editors trying to work here. The goal has been to keep it from becoming worse than useless in the face of a flood of news reports. The "feverish bubble" of journalists trying to make a splash, at times some very irresponsible pieces from news outlets. Politicians and others making "claims" and using rhetoric that is really less about the "lab leak" and more about pushing other agendas. The pressure from what i would call the unreasonable editors, those arriving here and attempting to have the article reflect their own opinions. Long, tedious, and ultimately pointless arguments on such as the concept of "scientific consensus" or the meaning of "plausible". The whole process has resulted in the article content reflecting the talk page, it tends to "participate in the argument" and some of the good content which serves to describe "lab leak" in an encyclopedic manner has become "scattered around" throughout the article and intermixed with much that obfuscates or actually promotes the "conspiratorial thinking" (Neil, Lewandowsky and Jacobs should really be required reading).
 * While the article probably could be a little more restrained in some areas and i do agree with some of your arguments, the ultimate question is are changes leading to an improvement in article content. I guess what i am trying to say is that i think BC is probably a couple of steps ahead of you as far as an actual plan for article improvement and his arguments should probably be taken on board and not dismissed as belonging on an essay or blog. fiveby(zero) 14:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia covers many ideas that are believed because of reasons other than scientific evidence, as ideas that are believed because of X reason[s]. If reliable sources say that LL is believed because of xenophobia, distrust of the PRC, or both, the article should reflect that. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate to document spurious reasons that people might believe the lab leak hypothesis. That should be done in a single, brief footnote section - not plastered everywhere in an effort to obscure the scientific record. Sennalen (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate to document spurious reasons that people might believe the lab leak hypothesis. That should be done in a single, brief footnote section - not plastered everywhere in an effort to obscure the scientific record. Sennalen (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

My basic outline of the series of events that transpired goes something like this: I think the structure of the article should go something along these lines. It should not bring up the jackasses in every paragraph of every section. It is indeed true that there was a political, psychological, cultural and discursive element to the claims. This is true. What hasn't been demonstrated -- and what no evidence has been shown for -- is that it was the only reason for their existence, or the most important, or the most noteworthy. It's true that there were some ignorant jackasses saying the lab leak happened, and they had very dumb reasons for saying this, and it may even be true that by raw numbers there were more of them than there were scientists saying the lab leak happened. Indeed, since experts are a small percentage of the population, we would expect this to be true of basically every issue on which politicians and the general public opine.
 * 1) COVID occurred and everyone was like "huh?"
 * 2) The 'lab leak theory' was the idea that COVID came from the lab in Wuhan, rather than the food market in Wuhan.
 * 3) For a while, nobody knew what the deal was.
 * 4) Various facts and claims and the like were presented as evidence for different origins.
 * 5) Also, some people on Twitter were jackasses.
 * 6) Donald Trump was also a jackass.
 * 7) Research and scientific analysis was carried out on all of the claims, and some of the lab leak claims did not hold up so good.
 * 8) Meanwhile, evidence and research began to accumulate suggesting that it was not from the lab in Wuhan.
 * 9) Currently, it's very unlikely and/or not possible that it came from the lab.

But the way science works is not to just take a bunch of random people with no expert knowledge, do a count of hands for who believes each hypothesis, then rank its correctness based on how many people with "I ❤️ Racism" t-shirts voted for it.

The reason why the lab leak theory was demonstrated to be incorrect was because subsequent research revealed that the factual claims it made about various aspects of the virus were vanishingly unlikely or untrue, whereas other factual claims about various aspects of the virus (i.e. the "bat-leaker theory") were found to be much more likely. That is the meat and potatoes of it. It's patronizing to our readers, and disrespectful to the people who spent years doing this research, to water it down by saying "it's untrue, reason number one is that a blogger said it was conspiratorial, reason two is that this news website said a crazy guy said it was true, reason three is that there were totally radical gnarly undercurrents, and reason four is that empirical evidence says it didn't happen". These things happened, but on a basic commonsense level, they are not (and cannot) be the reason why the thing is false. I don't understand the point in going out of our way to repetitively advance weak evidence when there is pretty strong evidence. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 20:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You didn't mention the knowledge from sources that the idea came from InfoWars/4Chan and was mixed up with racism. No respectable scientist has ever said "the lab leak happened"; what you are writing about this is your own invention. We should follow sources rather than this OR rambling. Bon courage (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this post was intended as a response to Rjjiii. You have made your opinions on this issue very clear, and I do not think it is very useful to continue responding to every comment I make saying the same thing, especially if that thing is to accuse me of "OR rambling" or being "mixed up with racism". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 21:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's not very useful for you to engage is dishonest misrepresentation of other editors' word. I nowhere accused you of being "mixed-up with racism" - that is a flat-out lie. Bon courage (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See the comment on your talk page; in the meantime I'll be happy to strike the comment. I still do not think it is very useful to continue responding to every comment I make saying the same thing, especially if that thing is to accuse me of "OR rambling". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 21:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I started to check out your source analysis. I agree that it's unhelpful to pack in so many references. It hinders verification at this point. I disagree with some of your interpretations:
 * Hardy (2020) opens with Anthropologists have long known how perceptions of contagion play out along the lines of xenophobia and racism. and continues along those lines. I don't see It says that some people, somewhere, were racist. as an accurate summary.
 * Gorski (2022) was the first reference I checked out after reading this discussion initially. I largely agree with in the discussion above.
 * Al-Mwzaiji (2021) provides an analysis of the speeches of several politicians. It characterizes the lab leak theory as "a post-truth narrative", "baseless", and "a rhetorical trope of international politics" reliant on viewing China as dishonest. Al-Mwzaiji (2021) is discussing why/how politicians promote LL, touching on point 6 above but suggesting manipulative more than jackass.
 * I won't try to reply to all the points you've raised, but in general I find a focus on hard facts often unhelpful when parsing how people believe because people are very weird. Regards, Rjjiii  (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with your assessment only on point 9, which has not been demonstrated. It has certainly been claimed, but based on poor evidence by individuals with conflicts of interest. Sennalen (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that is neither here nor there. The overwhelming balance of the sources we've got suggests that the theory is somewhere between very unlikely and disproven. I'm not a virologist so I am not really interested in (or capable of) digging deep to see if there are biological flaws in the evidence presented, and people who are extremely qualified in medical matters (i.e. Shib) have pretty convicingly made the point that there aren't. Maybe in a hundred years someone will discover that the lab leak really was true all along; that's fine, and I trust the good people of 2123 to evaluate the evidence at that point. In the meantime, it is fine for Wikipedia to reflect the broader scientific world, almost all of which thinks this didn't happen.
 * Overall, I am not particularly interested in recapitulating any part of the utterly worthless, excruciating, multi-year project-wide series of blood-sweat-and-tears shitflinging argumentation that got us to this conclusion. I would just prefer that our article about the theory straightforwardly and neutrally be about the theory, including the claims it makes and whether they're true, and also including the political and popular discourse on the subject where appropriate and relevant. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 22:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be a step forward. Sennalen (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with some of this timeline. The Occam's razor for any scientist that is familiar with pandemics is that it originated just like other pandemics via zoonosis, and the claim that it came from a lab leak is WP:EXTRAORDINARY so needs good evidence to override the Occam's razor here. That good evidence never materialized in WP:BESTSOURCES. Best sources have been saying that the lab leak was "highly unlikely", "extremely unlikely", "massive online speculations", "speculations, rumours, and conspiracy theories", "not evidence-based", and "opinion-based narratives" for a very long time. See WP:NOLABLEAK. The issue was never that confusing for scientists with expertise in this area.
 * This issue is so confusing to the rest of us because newspapers and other non-scientific media have been shouting at the top of their lungs into a bullhorn about lab leak being a plausible theory (partly due to right wingers intentionally trying to amplify this and spread misinformation). Wikipedians who don't work in the anti-fringe and WP:MEDRS areas get quite confused when normally A+ newspaper sources start disagreeing with PUBMED review articles, but at the end of the day, in areas of science, top notch academic sources must be given much more weight than newspapers. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The scientific consensus is that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is unknown. Neither zoonotic or artificial origins are proven, and neither are they disproven. There are gut feelings about likelihood, but there is no evidence-based framework for assigning liklihood. There are actors of every political stripe spreading disinformation. Pointing at the existence of right-wingers is ignoratio elenchi, and giving weight to them is counter to any desire for scientific integrity. Sennalen (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This comment and your earlier reply to me characterize zoonotic or artificial origins as similarly unknown. Could you point to reliable sources that place the explanations on the same level of uncertainty? Rjjiii  (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are a few
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512201458X
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1#Sec9
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06043-2
 * https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/12/5211/6353034
 * https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01585-9/fulltext
 * Sennalen (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Checking the first link and jumping to the "Conclusions" part, I found this: Although most data certainly point to a natural origin, the intermediate host has not been found, and the hypothesis of a laboratory-leak has not been yet scientifically discarded. That makes me think that you did not understand the question Could you point to reliable sources that place the explanations on the same level of uncertainty?, and I see no point in looking at the other links. THey probably do not say what you claim they say either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Literally jumping to conclusions, eh? Some other statements worth paying attention to in the first source are, Based on the information here reviewed, there is not yet a definitive and well demonstrated conclusion on the origin of SARS-CoV-2.; According to the available knowledge on that coronavirus, based on phylogenetic inferences, sequence analysis, and structure-function relationships of coronavirus proteins, Sallard et al. (2021) concluded that the data were not sufficient to firmly assert whether SARS-CoV-2 resulted from a zoonotic transfer or from a laboratory leak.; Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover have been suggested and remain still as possible. Thus, the available evidence does not allow to draw a firm conclusion on that origin.; Based on the information here reviewed, the only true facts are that, nowadays, there is not a definitive and well demonstrated conclusion on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Is the treatment at absolute parity? Certainly not. That's not a bar that needs to be cleared, though. What matters is that the question has not to date been settled scientifically. Sennalen (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So, that link is not an answer to "Could you point to reliable sources that place the explanations on the same level of uncertainty?" but to the not-asked question "Could you point to reliable sources that contain sentences that can be taken out of context to suggest that the source as a whole places the explanations on the same level of uncertainty?" --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * These are all sources that should be read and comprehended in their entirety to understand the scientific consensus. I'm not interested in finer-grained lawyering than that. Sennalen (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * From the second - To conclude, on the basis of currently available data it is not possible to determine whether the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a zoonosis from a wild viral strain or an accidental escape of experimental strains.
 * The third and fourth say nothing about the lab leak, but offer many reasons not to presumptively crown the wet market hypothesis as the winner.
 * In the fifth - The proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2 are still not known. Identifying these origins would provide greater clarity into not only the causes of the current pandemic but also vulnerabilities to future outbreaks and strategies to prevent them. We concur with the position of 18 leading scientists who wrote in Science magazine in May, 2021: “We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.” As a group of 16 scientists communicated in The Lancet in October, 2021: “Overwhelming evidence for either a zoonotic or research-related origin is lacking: the jury is still out.” More than 2 years into the pandemic, the search for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains incomplete and inconclusive. Independent experts consulted by the Lancet COVID-19 Commission shared the view that hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers are in play and need further investigation. Sennalen (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that, for the purposes of this talk page section, we might have to simply concede that there isn't a meeting of the minds on the issue; I'd recommend opening a separate section for it if you really want to go all the way into the issue of whether or not it's plausible or happened or the like. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 00:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Novem Linguae's timeline but I don't think it changes much. If anything, it should mean we refer to non-MEDRS sources even less than we would with jpxg's timeline. Loki (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Source analysis for "xenophobia" reference group
I am going through the refgroup, currently citation number 23, which is being used as sourcing to argue in favor of the theory being described as having "undercurrents", being "leveraged", and increasing racism in the lead. I am somewhat concerned that this is a WP:REFBOMB: an overwhelmingly large number of sources have been gathered in one place to support a contentious statement with an impressively long block of citations, but it's not clear that they actually back up the claim. These are the individual sources (refgroup "racism and xenophobia"):
 * 1. ❌ Does not make the claim.
 * Here, the claim is that among all of the people who "question if" this is true, "some" of them "mention relationships with, for instance, people from Wuhan, China, reflecting xenophobic ideologies". This does not say that the "lab leak theory", as a singular entity, is "leveraging" or "increasing" racism or xenophobia. It says that some people, somewhere, were racist. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 2. ❌ Opinion of a Chinese government official.
 * This is an opinion from an ambassador, officially representing the perspective of the Chinese government. It is not fact. If it is mentioned at all -- and it probably shouldn't be -- it must be given in-text attribution as the opinion of an officer of the Chinese government. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 3. ❌ Opinion of the book's author.
 * I don't know what the deal is on this book. It's described on the publisher's website is that it's a "close analysis". No quote is given for this, so I had to actually get a digital copy of the book. From pages 160 to 164, we have a story about a guy from Michigan at a protest against Gretchen Whitmer, citing George Santayana, whose Hegelianism the book goes into detail on; it then incorrectly quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes' "shouting fire" opinion on the notoriously overturned Schenck v. United States (attributing it instead to Abrams v. United States; neither the court's opinion nor Holmes' dissent in that case mentions the word "fire" once). I am not sure why this is used as a source, because there isn't a lot in here that is directly related to the lab leak theory; the closest I could find was this quote.
 * The rhetoric of the 'stolen' election invoked by Trump was psychologically very powerful for these White supporters. Many of them truly believe, cognitively, that their misfortunes and miseries are the result of being 'robbed'. The culprits were either the Chinese or illegal immigrants or Jewish plutocrats or the BLM mob, or all of them in concert, and Trump was the white knight in shining armour who would help them get back what was truly theirs. Indeed, all these groups, over the course of the year, had been blamed for spreading the virus, whether by purposely developing it in a laboratory in Wuhan (according to Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his CDC Director Robert Redfield) or by smuggling their infected bodies across the Southern border (according to the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott) or by George Soros and the Rothschilds creating a pandemic to control the world economy, never mind Bill Gates and high tech developing a vaccine to place a microchip in your brain!
 * First of all, this is specifically talking about white Trump supporters, not "lab leak" as an independent entity. To reiterate: if all cats are mammals, and Donald Trump is a mammal, this does not support the claim "Donald Trump is a cat". And while it certainly paints an illustrious picture, I must take great pains to again say that is the opinion of the author, even if it is printed on pieces of paper and bound with glue. This quote is not an objective factual claim that has the full backing of its publisher; it's an emotive sentence that is being written to illustrate an opinion. In case the distinction is not clear: would it be acceptable to write "Trump was the white knight in shining armor" in wikivoice -- no quotes, no attribution, just as a straight objective fact, and cite it to this? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

no one is saying that the lab leak theory is "inherently racist". We don't say that in the article. We say there are some racist undercurrents which underlie its popularity. That does not presuppose racism in all aspects of the theory, nor does it presuppose racism in all its supporters. It simply means that there is racism/racist ideas/etc wrapped up in the motivations/reasoning of some of the lab leak's supporters. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 4. ❌ Does not support the claim.
 * The claim here is that it "would be wrong [...] to assume that the lab-leak theory is inherently clean of those taints". The only way to turn this into "would be right [...] to assume that the lab-leak theory is inherently not clean of those taints" is literally false; it is a formal fallacy called denying the antecedent . But even if this were the intention of the original text, I just don't think it is the case that being "unclean of those taints" is the same as being inherently racist or conspiratorial. In fact, the quoted text itself literally says that this is "a mistake" in the previous sentence. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * even if this were the intention of the original text, I just don't think it is the case that being "unclean of those taints" is the same as being inherently racist or conspiratorial
 * Well, the stuff you're saying sounds fine to me: "there is racism/racist ideas/etc wrapped up in the motivations/reasoning of some of the lab leak's supporters" for example. I like this sentence and think it's true (as well as supported); I put a ❌ next to it here because the thing it was being used to support in article text was "The lab leak theory is informed by undercurrents of racism", which I think it's a gigantic stretch to come out of this. The thing you said would be good to put in the body; I don't know precisely what that translates into as far as a summary in the lead, but would be happy to come up with something. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 5. ❌ Literally does not mention the lab leak theory a single time.
 * Pages 105-151? I don't know who added this, but I suspect they did not read it if they're citing a 46-page range. My observations, as I read through: On p. 110 it says some very strange things:
 * By 2020, the Asia–Pacific Employment and Social Outlook 2020: Navigating the Crisis to a Human-Centred Future of Work anticipates that economic implications from the COVID-19 outbreak will result in the loss of 81 million jobs in Asia– Pacific.
 * In the second and third quarters of 2020, working hours in Asia and Pacific working hours are expected to fall by 15.2% and 10.7%, respectively
 * Preliminary research suggests that between 22 and 25 million people may fall into working poverty by 2020
 * This isn't quoted as a retrospective or anything -- it's being said in the current tense, i.e. that 2020 is in the future. This makes no sense to me, since the book was published in 2022; my best guess is that it's an anthology of various publications. However, if content in the book is that badly out of date, it does raise some concerns for quoting it about things that happened betweeen 2020 and 2023.
 * Page 114: Again with the bizarre references to 2020 in the future tense. "In mid-July 2020, the Democratic Party nominated Joe Biden and his running partner in Milwaukee, while the Republican Party is prepared to renominate Donald Trump in Charlotte, North Carolina."
 * Page 120: The first real mention of anything to do with race or ethnicity. Governments must ensure that COVID-19 measures do not discriminate against or target specific ethnic or racial groups and that marginalized groups, such as people with disabilities or special needs, are included and treated with dignity.
 * Page 143: In truth, natural disasters exacerbate underlying flaws in political and economic processes, such as elite distrust.
 * Page 133, I believe, is what this citation was actually meant to refer to.
 * COVID-19 has triggered a surge of xenophobia, which we mentioned earlier, toward internal Chinese migrants, Asian migrants in other countries, and, more lately, European migrants and foreigners in general, including in China and other places where the virus has had an impact. Scapegoating and stigmatization are widespread after natural catastrophes, terrorist attacks, and prior pandemics and epidemics. In general, the pandemic has been exploited to spread anti-migrant propaganda and advocate for stricter immigration controls and fewer rights for migrants. In many countries, newly emerging xenophobia has largely replicated pre-existing discriminatory practices, frequently targeting migrants from areas where COVID-19 infection is rare or non-existent, as well as people who have resided in the country for a long time.
 * Emphasis mine. This literally does not mention or allude to the "lab leak" whatsoever. Whoever added this was either mistaken or deliberately misrepresenting the source with a vague and difficult-to-verify citation. I've removed it from the article. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 6. ❌ Does not support the claim
 * This study cites data "collected from 8 fact-checking websites that formed a sample of 127 pieces of false COVID-19 news published from January 1, 2020 to March 30, 2020". That is to say, their sample was drawn entirely from claims during a three-month period at the beginning of the pandemic, and among them, only the claims so obviously false as to warrant public debunking by fact-checking websites. Even among this highly restricted sample, there are many types of untrue claims cited (i.e. "Sam Hyde is responsible for the spread of the new coronavirus", "The virus is an American product par excellence, according to the registry of inventions submitted in 2015"). The "racist issues" heading is given as one of four "impact themes". An example of a claim that would be supported by this reference is something like: "According to a study conducted on social media posts between January and March 2020, which looked at six 'frames' of false statements identified during that period, 'some false statements attributed the root of the virus to the Chinese Communist Party'." <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 7.  Directly makes the claim, but mostly about "Donald Trump and his entourage".
 * This article does discuss the lab leak, but the quote here continues as such:
 * When Trump baldly pointed the finger at China in the earliest days of the pandemic, unfortunate consequences followed. The proliferation of xenophobic rhetoric has been linked to a striking increase in anti-Asian hate crimes.
 * That sentence contains a link to this ABC article, which is about a sentiment analysis study involving hashtags used after Trump tweeted the term "ChineseVirus" on March 16, 2020; it does not mention the lab leak theory. The "proliferation of xenophobic rhetoric" referred to in this sentence is obviously attributed to "former President Donald Trump and his entourage". Similarly, later in the story, the "xenophobic instrumentalization of the lab-leak hypothesis" would seem to also refer back to Trump. This may well be worth mentioning, since the theory saw a lot of attention and interest from this highly political context throughout the years, and that's certainly a relevant part of the discourse surrounding it. If we decided this was WP:DUE, it could be cited like: "an article in Scientific American said that 'some politicians—most notably former President Donald Trump and his entourage' had engaged in 'xenophobic instrumentalization' of the lab-leak hypothesis." <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 8.  Opinion piece in a literary magazine.
 * n+1 describes itself, on its "about" page, as "a print and digital magazine of literature, culture, and politics" founded by "writers and editors who wanted to revive the American tradition of politically engaged literary magazines", which sees "literature, politics, and culture as aspects of the same project". While this sounds cool, and indeed a perusal of the magazine leads me to the opinion that it is indeed pretty cool, we again run into the same issue: literary criticism is not fact, and should be attributed as opinion to its authors. Here, for example, is a great article, which opens with "We live in undeniably ugly times. Architecture, industrial design, cinematography, probiotic soda branding — many of the defining features of the visual field aren’t sending their best." I agree with this, but it would be ridiculous to add it in wikivoice to the lead of architecture, industrial design, cinematography etc. "Architecture is undeniably ugly[1]": this would be so obviously inappropriate, it's hard to even explain how.
 * The article begins by saying that the coverage and discourse about the wet-market theory was xenophobic, among the examples of which were Fauci and a senior UN official, and later, "That the wet-market theory is Sinophobic became liberal common sense". The full quote, from which the citation's quote has been excerpted, goes on to say:
 * The lab-leak theory came to legitimacy by a circuitous path. It was first auditioned by Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo shortly after lockdown started, but journalists were quick to distance themselves from its overtones of crude Trumpian racism. Nevertheless the theory gained new life last spring, when some of those same journalists — abetted by a chorus of concern trolls — began to question if they had been blinded by liberal partisanship. By May 2021, lab leak was circulating more widely in the mainstream news than wet market ever had, leading to new Senate hearings, an investigation by the Biden Administration, and an endorsement by the conscience of safe liberalism, Jon Stewart. A December 2021 poll indicated that the lab-leak theory is now believed by 72 percent of Americans.
 * This seems to militate against the claim that the idea was "fed by racist undercurrents", and rather implies that it was believed by lots of people for a variety of reasons. Overall, the article is quite long, and is a perfectly acceptable piece of social and literary critique. However, the nature of literary critique as the personal expression of its author becomes apparent in passages like this one:
 * Although there are many reasons for the lab-leak theory’s wide acceptance, it is hard to ignore just how neatly its abstract, worldwide contours align with burgeoning global animosity toward China as an omnipotent economic force. It is the plausibility of this China, rather than a generic, foreign Orient, that I believe serves as the major basis for stereotype and the resonance of the lab-leak theory.
 * Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Cite it with in-text attribution then; for it is the opinion of its author. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 9.  Directly makes the claim about Donald Trump.
 * This source has significant amounts of hedging which aren't reflected in the quote. Here is an example (emphasis mine):
 * Narrations carried out by various political elites from various countries in the world, one of which is Donald Trump, who calls the Covid-19 virus the "Chinese Virus", "Kung Flu", "Wuhan Virus," and various other negative mentions that are spread through social media and news channel is a form of xenophobic and racist narrative (Benjamin 2021). The speech has connotations that seem to be scapegoating a specific institution or community—which in this case is China and the Asian community
 * The paper overwhelmingly discusses the issue of racism as a consequence of the pandemic's origin in China and of politicians' inflammatory remarks regarding that, rather than in specific conjunction with a lab leak theory. Apart from that, yes; it does directly say that Donald Trump's advancement of the lab leak theory directly caused anti-Asian racism. I'm not sure about the rigor of the paper or of the journal (it makes some questionable claims) but that can be addressed later. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 10.  Not a clear attribution.
 * The source says "use of such language", referring to the terms mentioned immediately before that sentence fragment. The lab leak theory constitutes the claim that "COVID-19 escaped from a laboratory". It does not encompass the claim that "COVID-19 is called the Kung Flu"; this is a separate thing. "COVID-19 came from China" is similarly a separate issue, and "COVID-19 is Chinese" is a linguistic concern. While "the hypothesis [...]" is included in the list of things that politicians did, it's not clear that they are attributing the increase in racist terms being posted on social media to it. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 11. ❌ This is an opinion piece.
 * I addressed this above, so I will simply say here what I said there. This is an opinion piece written on a science website. The full quote is this:
 * That’s evolutionary biologist Heather Heying on the podcast that she does with her husband, biologist Bret Weinstein, claiming that it’s a conspiracy to “definitely” show that it was “those people” who caused the pandemic, not a lab leak. In a massive exercise in projection, she calls claims that the pandemic started at the Huanan market “racist,” apparently ignoring the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government."
 * This is opinion writing. It's clear that David Gorski thinks there is "blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak", which is perfectly fine to attribute to him. However, the article is clearly a work of opinion: he also says things like "Also, in that interview from last year Jon Stewart disappointed me in the extreme by sounding very much like the sort of conspiracy theorists that he used to mock on The Daily Show."" It's clear here that David Gorski thinks Jon Stewart is 'disappointing in the extreme', but it would clearly be inappropriate to add He is "disappointing in the extreme".[1] to Jon Stewart with no attribution. Opinions are not facts, and should be attributed to their authors. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 12. ❌ This cites an opinion piece.
 * A citation at the end of this sentence has been omitted from the quote. The citation leads to Cho J., (2021) Lab-Leak, gain-of-function and the media myths swirling around the Wuhan Institute of Virology. https://www.mintpressnews.com/lab-leak-gain-function-media-myths-swirling-around-wuhan-institute/278555/. Accessed 11 August 2022. There's absolutely no indication that the paper has done any empirical work to scientifically determine that the opinion is true. It is an opinion article on a website whose front page, as of right now, seems to clearly indicate it exists to advocate political ends. I do not think it should be cited as fact. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Ref 11, we have discussed many times. It is the expert opinion of an expert in the field of misinformation. And is therefore very useful here. WP:ASSERT expert opinions (which are widely regarded as true) as fact. The same goes for Ref 12, Garry is an expert on the topic of the lab leak theory. OTOH, he cites the mintpress article, so yes if we want to say it is in a sense poisoned since we don't consider Mintpress an RS, then yes we should remove 12.Ref 2 I mostly agree with your analysis, but I think it's just the wrong quote. I can't find the right one at the moment. I am not opposed to taking out that ref if we cannot produce a better quote from the source.I don't have a lot of time or energy to dedicate to a back and forth on this, and if most others here agree with your interpretation then I would say yeah, let's just take out the whole thing. However, if I am right, and some/many of these quotes do support a summary-style statement to the effect that "yes, there is some racism in the milleu of ideas which back up the lab leak theory" then we should keep those refs/quotes, and keep/optimize that statement. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As I recall the only purpose of the refgroup was to quell continued objections that LL had nothing to do with racism according to sources. It's redundant IMO and should be removed. Bon courage (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this true? If so, something very wrong has happened here; I am rather concerned by the idea that twelve references could be added to an article to "quell continued objections" in a way that substantially misrepresented the sources (either deliberately or through failure to actually read what they said before citing them). <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure. You'll need to do some digging. I think might be able to help? I think if you're going to start lodging accusations about "deliberate" misrepresentation you need to provide diffs and evidence pronto (or strike), considering this is a WP:CTOP. Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you are talking about; you might want to read my comment again. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "... in a way that substantially misrepresented the sources (either deliberately or ...". What makes you cast WP:ASPERSIONS about sources being possibly misrepresented "deliberately"? How do you think that's helpful? Bon courage (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read my entire comment (i.e. all the way to the end of the sentence). <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 07:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I (obviously) did: "either deliberately or through failure to actually read what they said before citing them". I'm talking about the 'either' part of your 'either/or' accusation. Why are you raising the possibility of deliberate misrepresentation? And are you raising this as an admin or as a regular editor? Personally, I assume the refgroup was added with good intentions (FWIW). Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As I have tried to explain, I am not attempting to "raise", "cast" or "lodge" anything. I don't know how to explain the meaning of the words "either" and "or" in greater detail. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * the misrepresentations in this article are not confined to the statements about xenophobia, and the aspersions about racism are typical of the discussion page.
 * For example, the claim that "Most large Chinese cities have laboratories that study coronaviruses" is stated in wikivoice but sourced to an opinion piece by a conflicted author. This issue was raised on the Talk page and countered with a bunch of stuff about racism.
 * Besides the abuse of sourcing, that claim is misleading because the WIV lab in Wuhan is not just one of many coronavirus labs: it's the lab that was involved in the DEFUSE proposal to add a furin cleavage site to a sarbecovirus, the year before the outbreak. DEFUSE is easily the most disturbing piece of evidence on the lab-leak side, but it is relegated to a single paragraph buried deep in the article. - Palpable (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with some of your interpretations above. Others I do agree with and think those particular sources could be removed. I admit i added many of these, but I am not sure where others came from or if those are the original quotations I referenced. But many of the things you describe above I would take issue with.E.g. I think #1 does support the statement about "racist undercurrents" which underly the leveraging (by some) of the lab leak theory. E.g. yes, some people have racist ideas/motivations/ideologies which are part of their support of the theory. #1 absolutely supports that idea. We can word it however you would like, but that is the idea put forward in that ref. It is also the idea underlying a major thesis in Refs 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, . You repeatedly attempt to use formal logic to somehow invalidate refs and sourcing, but that isn't how Wikipedia works. We don't need our refs themselves to be "logical", we just need them to, in some semblance, to recapitulate or represent en face what we say they represent. We don't need formal logic proofs every time we write a reference on this website. If a source says "lots of people in group X who support theory Y do so based on racist ideology" then I can reference that source and say "many (or some) supporters of theory Y are motivated by racist ideology". That's WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY.Ref 10, I believe you are misreading. "use of such language" would also encompass rhetoric calling it a bioweapon, from a chinese lab, etc. in their analysis.
 * Sorry, your post deserves a longer response, but in short, yes -- I think these demonstrate something. They:re perfectly fine sources that should be used, I just think they fail to support the claim that the theory is "informed by racist undercurrents" or that it "leverages racist tropes", et cetera (at least as objective fact: it's clear that some people have said this, which is itself noteworthy). <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no disagreement in RS the LL is shaped by racism, so we are required simply to assert this expert knowledge in wikivoice, to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is untrue. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What, that it's a truism LL is a shaped by racism? or that we need to be neutral? Fron WP:NPOV: (my emphasis) Bon courage (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What are the "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources"? Are you just ignoring the above section completely? At this point it begins to feel like you are just WP:BLUDGEONING. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion is that there is blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak. RS tells us this and Nobody contests it. All that editors are trying to do is find the right words to relay this knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the beginning part of this section, i.e. the more than twenty-four paragraphs of detailed source analysis. RS does not "tell us this". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly interested in (most of) those sources and support the refgroup removal; I usually prefer one stellar source to WP:REFBOMBing, and of course the lede should summarize the body. The WP:SBM source gives us Gorski's expert assessment that there is blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, and is RS for statements of fact so: we can just assert it. NPOV is not optional. Bon courage (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No; like I've said several times, the Gorski reference is obviously an opinion piece. It is not a statement of fact. Are there any other references that support your claim? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Obviously" not. Like everything on SBM, the article offers analysis, commentary and evaluation around (fringe) scientific topics. As such it is suitable for assertions of fact, as the community has repeatedly found. If Gorski ventures opinions (typically by saying 'in my opinon') that's another matter. Bon courage (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is this consensus? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 07:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Many past RfCs - but it's wrapped-up (quite nicely in this case) at WP:RSP which says this source is WP:GREL. That is, "reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise". We're in a WP:FRINGE science topic so this is its area of expertise. Bon courage (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand what WP:GREL means, and have never disagreed with you that the source is GREL. Where is the consensus that "being WP:GREL" causes all opinions of its writers expressed in any context to become true? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 20:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is "reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise". The lab leak is the subject matter of the article being cited. What you are basically doing is trying to recast all secondary assessments of subjects as "opinion", which happens to be a fringe-pusher gambit that is very familiar (as in "you can't use this source to say that coffee enemas are medically useless, it's just the author's OpInIon!"). Bon courage (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you really think I am a "fringe-pusher", feel free to start a noticeboard thread about it. Otherwise, I would appreciate if you could join me in discussing the content of the article. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 21:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is, if the "expert assessment in fringe science is just opinion" idea was adopted, a large part of Wikipedia would need to be re-written. Fortunately we have a NPOV policy and consensus about reliable sourcing to make the position plain. Bon courage (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so I hope you'll allow me to ask a question, and I hope that you'll indulge me in answering it. What specific sentence do you think would be acceptable to write in the article attribute to this source, based on the excerpted section? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 21:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * We already have Gorski (quoted & attributed) in the body for this, so that's done already, if perhaps not in final form. Bon courage (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of starting from the conclusion that the lab leak theory is racist, what if we surveyed the field unbiasedly for where lab leak hypotheses come from and what motivates them? Not to say this one is best, but for example David Quammen in NYT (https://archive.is/4nyZm) happened to cross my desk today. He says,
 * Research accidents have occurred, too, in the history of dangerous new viruses, and longtime concerns over such accidents constitute the priors of some who favor the lab-leak hypothesis for Covid.
 * The lab-leak idea, meanwhile, took hold in some political circles, partly because it dovetailed with attitudes toward the Chinese government, its repressive policies and its penchant for secrecy.
 * The attractions of the lab-leak idea weren’t entirely partisan.
 * Even the director-general of the W.H.O. himself, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, hoped for further investigation. At a news conference marking the report’s publication, Tedros said, “As far as W.H.O. is concerned, all hypotheses remain on the table,” noting the need for continued research.
 * So, what’s tilting the scales of popular opinion toward lab leak? The answer to that is not embedded deeply in the arcane data I’ve been skimming through here. What’s tilting the scales, it seems to me, is cynicism and narrative appeal. Sennalen (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We already have an "Origins" section which actually details 'where it came from' (something that NYT piece doesn't consider). The chief document seems to be from Jan 26 2020 entitled Coronavirus Bioweapon–How China Stole Coronavirus From Canada And Weaponized It. (It would be fascinating to know about the gensis of this document, but alas there are no sources I know of.) Within a few days this had gone (ahem) viral with many millions of shares/views. But as we try to say in the article, LL is not one thing, there's the bare 'respectable' scientific question, which is fairly mundane (could it have been from a leak? that was considered somewhat possible at first, then increasingly less so), AND parallel to that is an enormous megastructure of pseudoscience/politics/conspiracism. As the science question has faded this megastructure has remained, and seems to be what is interesting academics as a kind of psycho-social phenomenon. Bon courage (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A document widely ridiculed and with no use by others can hardly be called an origin for the still-active scientific inquiry into lab-related incidents. If you want to write about covid conspiracy theories, there's an article for that. Sennalen (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that this IS the origin of LL, according to RS. As I've said before this Wikipedia article should not exist. We should have the 'respectable' stuff in Origin of COVID-19 and there should be an article on the whack stuff. But editors (pro-LL ones especially) insisted on having this article which splices the two things. We are where we are. Bon courage (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with that Gorski is not an opinion piece, and is WP:GREL. This is clearly supported by WP:RSPSOURCES and the RSN discussions it links. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shibbolethink on all points. DFlhb (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Addition to the "Developments in 2022" section?
I propose we mention that Zapatero and Barba (2023) say that these developments (Worobey, Pekar, Holmes) do not close the discussion on the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The current section includes only comments on the 2022 developments that supports them, while including Zapatero and Barba adds proper balance, in my opinion. Forich (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * As a review, it's not really new information or an occurrence specifically in 2022, so a chronological section is not really the best for it. It could be used to shore up general summary statements that might be relying on older references. Sennalen (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Request
There is a request for enforcement regarding editor behavior concerning COVID-19 origins at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Sennalen (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here we go again... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2023
Please change Economoist to Economist CharlesKiddell (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Liu1126 (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)