Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 7

Weasel word
I agree with 's removal of the WP:WEASEL word "far". If some scientists believe this theory is "far" less likely than another, then their WP:OPINIONs should be attributed to them, and not made as a statement of fact in the WP:VOICE of Wikipedia. Alternatively, we can use the WHO report's "extremely unlikely" descriptor, and give the whole story behind that. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't need to attribute what is the consensus position among relevant scientists. Too much attribution is a sign of bad NPOV writing; and in this case it would be putting the position of qualified scientists into WP:UNDUE doubt based on false equivalence with that of journalists and non-experts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There are many qualified scientists, various experts across different fields, and mainstream journalists who believe the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is likely a lab leak, or at least 50/50 origin came from a laboratory. Regarding the removal of the word "far", it obviously should not be included in the lead. The WIV article includes the following phrase "scientific opinion [is] that an accidental leak is possible, but unlikely", so these two related articles have an obvious discrepancy and the word "far" should not be included in the text. Yodabyte (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many many qualified scientists, various experts across different fields, and mainstream journalists who believe the moon landing was faked and that vaccines cause autism. But in both leads, we communicate the scientific consensus in appropriate language, which describes these as not very likely. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 09:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with RandomCanadian. It’s NPOV and in compliance with FRINGE to include “far.” — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove "far" is my vote. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)  70.191.102.240 (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How convenient. This is not a vote, and if the best you can come up with is self-published nonsense from somebody with no background in virology, then it can safely be disregarded. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree there was support for including the word "far" throughout 2020 and the first half of 2021. However with new information and data published (much of it from scientists) since May/June 20221, the word "far" should not be included in the lead. Also, as another user User:Aeonx has pointed out, "most scientists" is inconsistent with cited references and unlike "many" implies an unambiguous polled majority. The word "most" should be altered and changed in the lead to "many" for purposes of accuracy and in line with reliable sources. More evidence is needed that the virus had a natural origin due to inadequate data. China has unfortunately been very secretive and hasn't cooperated with legitimate investigations (including WHO) so an accurate determination of origin cannot be made as of October 2021. Yodabyte (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To quote @RandomCanadianfrom another talk page: ""There is consensus within the scientific community to consider that SARS-CoV-2 has not been engineered and is a naturally occurring virus." (Frutos et al., 2021 - or even the Nature article, which is indeed a reliable source; or this recent article which is unequivocal: "To be clear, most scientists think animal spillover is the most likely explanation because that's where most new diseases come from.") and in the excellent sources template, which I think is at the top of this talk page or at least most related ones. We don't need a poll (a primary source) if we have secondary sources which tell us otherwise, nor do we second guess reliable sources because the scientific mainstream is different from the popular opinion mainstream. As the last page I link explain, this is not a popularity contest. If you think that "most" is inappropriate, you're free to present an actual acceptable source which contradicts this." "far more" is consistent with the state of the consensus of relevant experts. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 10:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess the question at the heart of this is how are scientists able to conclude that a natural origin is more likely (or for that matter much more likely) when they are working with a scarcity of data due to China being very secretive and hiding data and not cooperating with legitimate investigations (including WHO, etc.)? Yodabyte (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And the answer is "not our problem", since criticising scientists is not the job of Wikipedia editors. See WP:VNT, or if you want something more eloquent, WP:FLAT. China being secretive is not evidence of anything: Hussein' regime was also secretive, and, yet, there were no WMDs in Iraq... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First, you completely ignored my relevant question. Second, to compare WP:FLAT with a scenario that has a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction (i.e. accidental lab leak), is completely absurd. Third, I don't really understand the WMD comparison - yes there were no WMD found but there was also no evidence supporting WMD in Iraq besides CIA/U.S. propaganda and false claims made by Hussein himself because he wanted to make enemies believe he had them. Regarding the origin of COVID-19 there is actually a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to an actual accidental lab leak. Yodabyte (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to scientists who have relevant qualifications, there is not "a lot of evidence", there's only the fact that the virus was first detected in a city where there was a virology lab. We follow the scientific mainstream, as per the pages I already linked, and thus your questions don't matter because scientists don't take them seriously. Whatever you or I think is irrelevant if it is not substantiated in quality sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Many "scientists who have relevant qualifications" disagree. Here are two from a NYT article (there are many others including Richard Ebright and David Relman):

Akiko Iwasaki: In March 2021, the W.H.O.-China team released a report that dedicated only four out of 313 pages to the possibility of a lab leak, without any substantial data to back up their conclusion that it was highly unlikely...Dr. Iwasaki said “There’s so little evidence for either of these things, that it’s almost like a tossup.”...Dr. Ian Lipkin said he was dismayed to learn of two coronavirus studies from the Wuhan Institute of Virology that had been carried out with only a modest level of safety measures, known as BSL-2. In an interview with The Times, Dr. Lipkin said this fact wasn’t proof in itself that SARS-CoV-2 spread from the lab. “But it certainly does raise the possibility that must be considered” he said. Yodabyte (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And did those same "scientists with relevant qualifications" bother to get their words published in peer-reviewed publications, similar to those I've already listed (Frutos et al.; Holmes et al. mentioned by Shibboleth; the other ones listed at WP:NOLABLEAK)? We grant more weight to secondary sources, especially review papers which are more likely to reflect the consensus of other sources, than to random doctors quoted in the press (who are in effect primary sources in this instance). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:FLAT. A few detractors does not shift a consensus. Plus many have said the recent developments of more similar coronaviruses found in nature than RATG-13 pretty convincing evidence of a natural origin... Plus it's not like anyone is calling it "solved," they're just saying what is and is not more likely. Finally, the existence of a possibility of something being hidden is not enough to disregard the consensus opinion. If that were the case, then we would need to re-write the entirety of the JFK conspiracies article as there may be some information the CIA isn't telling us yet, even though they released troves of documents. Something could still be out there! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a poor comparison, has the Chinese government released troves of documents? Yodabyte (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of the best sources on the topic; not a place for editors to substitute their original hypotheses on the topic to those of high-quality sources. If you can't substantiate your arguments with reliable, peer-reviewed scientific papers (or other similar high-quality sources), then you're wasting everyone's time, and should stop before it reaches the point where you might be accused of ignoring it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you, I posed the question to Shibboleth ink  who made a comparison to JFK conspiracy theories, which didn't make sense. Just like your Iraqi WMD comparison earlier also made no sense. Yodabyte (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the WMD comparison isn't mine; it's present in this source (scroll to the bottom) from back in May. And it makes perfect sense: absence of evidence is not evidence of wrongdoing; and you simply contradicting all of our comments without good supporting sources or reasoning is rather a bad argument in the pyramid of disagreement..., and really suggests you should WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove far, per WP:UNDUE. RandomCanadian's most recent source is indeed "unequivocal": this Harvard (History of Science) professor supports more likely, not far more likely. Most scientists think animal spillover is the most likely explanation ... What do we do when evidence suggests that a claim might be right ...? Here it's helpful to distinguish between two forms of the lab-leak theory. (See POV statement template for further guidance.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Holmes et al. review has also very clear language that "Although the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely relative to the numerous and repeated human-animal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife trade." "Most scientists think X is most likely" is coherent with both "more likely" and "far more likely"; but in this case the better source (an actual scientific paper) suggests that the second of these is more accurate. So stick with what is already in the article instead of making much ado about practically nothing (one word), especially when you're taking only one source in isolation to support your point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See also LitCovid (maintained by NCBI) for papers on this specific subject. You will find stuff like (arguably, an opinion from one scientist, so not too useful here, although an interesting read); ;, all very recent, and which all head in the same direction as the Holmes paper and previous sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  16:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Holmes et al. discloses its principal author's relationships with China CDC and Fudan as possible influences that might lead him to support certain findings. Most scientific associations would therefore call this article a biased source for those findings.
 * RandomCanadian's most recent source, Wang et al., is also an "actual scientific paper" by professional scientists published in a peer-reviewed journal, Cell Research (Shanghai); and its authors explicitly state that they have no potential conflict of interest. Their study concludes:
 * Unlike journalists, most professional scientists might thus appear to believe that an accidental origin in some other country is more likely than one in their (or their colleagues') country. Oreskes offers a reason for this apparent logical incongruity:
 * A Harvard History of Science professor made this pertinent observation, in a Scientific American (Policy) article helpfully cited by RandomCanadian. –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC) 21:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Holmes et al is written by many authors, and the very slimly described possible COI of one of them does not invalidate the entire paper. The vast majority of contributing authors have no connection to China. Nor does it invalidate the fact that they are coming to the same conclusion as many multiple other MEDRSes, as described in WP:NOLABLEAK and at the top of this page in the sources template. This: Unlike journalists, most professional scientists thus appear to believe that an origin in some other country is more likely than one in their (or their colleagues') country. is not supported by the sources. Holmes et al also concludes China is the most likely origin. Wang et al is in the minority here, and that's why we aren't reporting that aspect of the paper in wikivoice. But they agree a natural origin is most likely, even if they disagree that Hubei province is the likely origin. Your statement about scientists believing the origin is outside their own country is wrong. We have most scientists (e.g. Shi Zhengli) still maintaining Southern China (or just outside it) is the most likely origin. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 09:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your reply concerning Wang et al. ("Tracing the Origins") is helpful, and I've clarified my comment accordingly. The context there is (a) accidental lab leaks and (b) that particular paper, as viewed through Oreskes's history-of-science lens. Concerning Holmes et al.: Holmes lists himself as the principal author, and he discloses relationships that, if known to others, might be viewed as a conflict of interest. None of his colleagues disclose any possible opposing (or balancing) influences. We can still include this article as a source, though, per NPOV#Bias in sources policy. –Dervorguilla (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC) 02:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You cannot unilaterally declare that a source is POV biased and therefore excluded due to COI (in wikipedia terms), which are different from any author declaring a COI in a statement, which is true of many many RSes on Wikipedia. In order to do that, you would need the consensus of editors to agree in an RfC or a WP:NPOVN post. You, as an individual editor, are not a unilateral authority on this. And I disagree that A) being from China, B) being a scientist, or C) working for the Chinese CDC, are enough of a conflict of interest that it precludes the source from being used. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your reply concerning Wang et al. ("Tracing the Origins") is helpful, and I've clarified my comment accordingly. The context there is (a) accidental lab leaks and (b) that particular paper, as viewed through Oreskes's history-of-science lens. Concerning Holmes et al.: Holmes lists himself as the principal author, and he discloses relationships that, if known to others, might be viewed as a conflict of interest. None of his colleagues disclose any possible opposing (or balancing) influences. We can still include this article as a source, though, per NPOV#Bias in sources policy. –Dervorguilla (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC) 02:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You cannot unilaterally declare that a source is POV biased and therefore excluded due to COI (in wikipedia terms), which are different from any author declaring a COI in a statement, which is true of many many RSes on Wikipedia. In order to do that, you would need the consensus of editors to agree in an RfC or a WP:NPOVN post. You, as an individual editor, are not a unilateral authority on this. And I disagree that A) being from China, B) being a scientist, or C) working for the Chinese CDC, are enough of a conflict of interest that it precludes the source from being used. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove as per Dervorguilla. LondonIP (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Can we trust the assessment of scientists given the small amount of data available?
A few editors here are very insistent that "mainstream" scientists believe the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is probably natural, but if those scientists are making that conclusion with minimal data and substantial circumstantial evidence points to an accidental laboratory leak, isn't this an issue? What am I missing here, I am genuinely confused. Yodabyte (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say you are missing the fact that it is not our job to peer review scientists' assessments and disregard them based on our own opinions of the evidence. It is only our job to figure out what type of source it is, what it says, and whether it is the mainstream or minority viewpoint (or WP:FRINGE). That is the extent of our job. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This is duplicative of the above, to which I have now merged it. And what you are arguing is WP:OR. As has been already pointed to you multiple times, we don't care whether the scientists are making that conclusion with minimal data, with substantial evidence, or with total disregard for reality, if there are no other scientists who are criticising them for this in sources of similar quality, then, as far as we are concerned, the scientists are right. Again, verifiability, not truth and WP:MAINSTREAM are useful reading. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

POV dispute
Tagged statement (Most scientists have remained skeptical of the idea, ... believing that a natural origin is far more likely.) as POV (signifying that it may not be entirely without bias), to attract editors with different viewpoints and additional insight. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are we relitigating this statement that we have litigated so many times in so many different articles, and always come out with consensus in favor of keeping it? The sources have not changed. It is many different WP:MEDRS articles saying this, many WP:NEWSORG saying this, and very few NEWSORG articles disputing it. Per WP:FRINGE, we report what the WP:BESTSOURCES say. Not what we feel in our heart are the "more accurate" sources. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 09:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm done with this WP:IDHT. Yes, we're not "without bias", and I'm going to point to WP:YWAB once more. Now, if you don't like it, you're free to post neutrally-worded messages on the relevant Wikiprojects, but not to relitigate via tag an issue which has already been under discussion for days, weeks, months, ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Disputes can leave people "disillusioned with the project" and cause them to abandon editing Wikipedia altogether, as Ryan mentioned. So I hope you're not really "done with this", RandomCanadian. I'm finding no consensus here or elsewhere that "far more likely" isn't a violation of NPOV, though; so let me suggest a compromise solution.
 * •The purpose of [the POV statement] template is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. Let's try it for a week and see whether it does indeed broaden participation. Otherwise it gets removed.
 * Alternatively, we could try the weaker POV check inline template. –Dervorguilla (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The other, [and only acceptable] solution is, as has been persistently asked, to provide sources of equal quality to those provided for the counter. Except for your own personal objections that there is "no consensus" on this, you haven't provided such sources (none of the few sources in this whole section state anything resembling that, the only links are obvious original conclusions). So I am indeed "done with this" (with arguing with you) until you can comply with that requirement, which as you already know is covered by the most basics policies of Wikipedia, and which I have no reason to repeat once again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no I don't think we should have the tag at all. I agree we have consensus that the tag should not be placed from the above discussion. This is the status quo, to have no tag. If you disagree, you could escalate the dispute, or wait for other uninvolved editors to participate and see if they agree with you. To me, this seems an improper use of the "POV" tag to label something that is pretty clearly a fair summary of the sources, but that is an unpopular opinion among a very vocal minority. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources have reportedly changed:


 * 1) Folmer et al., ABC News –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * So still (mostly US) newspapers. Inappropriate for scientific information. And even the newspapers is not saying that what was true "in the early days" is not true anymore: "should not be ignored as a possibility" does not mean that it is "likely"; and of course the fact is we have no clue what the other 15 who didn't reply think (maybe they think nothing at all has changed and the question is just obvious politicking? impossible to know...). Anyway, WP:FLAT, as Shibboleth linked, is again appropriate: science is not done by counting votes, and news media are poor sources when they conflict with scholarship. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Still a case of WP:RS/AC. You need statements talking about the consensus of the relevant scientific community. It isn't sufficient to have the opinions of N people in the scientific community. Also note Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus. -- there aren't any reviews suggesting the consensus has changed, but there are several vice versa. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And what is the relevant scientific community? If every scientist stayed in their own lane, Frances Arnold would not have won a Nobel Prize. Scientific consensus on the origins of the virus will not be formed by virologists alone, but also biosafety, biosecurity and geopolitical experts. Many scientists like David Relman have until we have sufficient data, investigators must take both hypotheses seriously, a position echoed by scientists like David Sanders, who say doesn’t think there’s enough evidence yet either way to take a stand on Covid’s origin. There clearly isn't a consensus here. LondonIP (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Until those scientists bother to have their expert opinions put up to the rigours of peer review in reputable journals instead of in newspapers (or in opinion letters to the editor), their opinions are not relevant for judging scientific consensus, because scientific consensus is not formed by giving sound bites to the media, or counting how many scientists have done so (and of course, entirely ignoring the entirely unrepresentative selection you give...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is essentially the WP:FLAT argument. We're not saying "stay in your lane" we're describing the "slow and conservative" nature of this project. If this were 1491, we would describe the universe with the Earth as its center. If this were 1860, we would describe the solution to puerperal fever as fixing "bad air". It does not matter what a few outlying individual scientists say. It matters what has been published in the pages of reputable topic-relevant reliable source academic journals. These review articles and professional body statements are how we determine consensus. As has been explained numerous times in these talk pages. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 09:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Biomedical sources: RandomCanadian has helpfully provided a comparatively "representative selection" from the LitCovid biomedical database.
 * 1) Loeb (in Veterinary Record) supports more likely, not far more likely.
 * 2) Frutos et al. (in Environmental Research) is paywalled; but in that same issue, Hassan et al. seems to contradict far more likely:
 * 3) Wang et al. (in Cell Research [Shanghai]), tells researchers worldwide not to draw conclusions about origins yet.
 * Mainstream-media sources: There is consensus that ABC News is generally reliable.
 * In aggregate, our cited policies and sources (and common sense) don't appear to allow far more likely. But they do allow more likely. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC) 06:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet again more selective quoting/misrepresentation of sources. Wang et al. is clearly not mentioning the lab leak as the thing not to draw conclusions on. In fact, it explicitly says: "The origin-tracing progress has long been hindered by politicization, unfounded slander and widespread laboratory leakage hypothesis. It is high time to start the real global search for sarbecoviruses in the potential locations to identify the origins"... You don't start a "real global search" by seriously considering something which has hindered the process. Loeb is one veterinarian's opinion (not an expert on viruses), which I explicitly marked as "interesting read but not very useful for our purposes". Now, Frutos, I don't know what is not clear, but "Origin of COVID-19: Dismissing the Mojiang mine theory and the laboratory accident narrative." is not a title that leaves much open to interpretation; and in the other paper Frutos spends time discussing each "variant" of the lab leak, before coming to the conclusions that (of the Mojiang Mine story) "This narrative on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be dismissed. Not only there is no evidence to support it but there is evidence against it."; (of a leak from the WIV lab) "Nevertheless, it is simply not possible for a virus which does not physically exist, for a virtual sequence in computer, to escape from a laboratory and trigger an epidemic."; (of deliberate engineering) "These are only unsubstantiated accusations and a narrative based on a virtual scenario.". And if Frutos is claiming some uncertainty, reading the whole paper will show that theory he is putting forward is the "circulation model", not anything related to the lab.
 * And the whole of the above, again, ignoring better sources (such as reviews of which you already know the contents of - listed at WP:NOLABLEAK for your convenience, as usual), like the Holmes paper (which is definitely on the "fare more unlikely" side); and others. Selectively quote mining for sentences that can be misinterpreted, and using newspapers for topics where they contradict scholarship ("generally reliable" means just that, and not [excuse the irony] "divinely revealed truth": some sources are simply better than others); is not helpful; and is actively leading me to think I'm wasting my time here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Would editors be open to a compromise of changing the wording to something like "much more likely" rather than "far more likely"? Multiple editors have expressed their opinion that "far more likely" does seem a little too strong, whereas simply "more likely" may be a little too weak—so maybe we can split the difference? Stonkaments (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "much more likely" is fine with me. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * About source 1- Loeb's interviewee represents himself as an epidemiologist (with research interests in bat-transmitted viruses), not a "veterinarian". You may want to reflect on whether your expressed concern about the source being a "veterinarian (not an expert on viruses)" is allowed under BLPTALK standards.
 * About source 2- Please reread my statement. Do you really see "selective quoting/misrepresentation of" Frutos et al. (or any other work)?
 * About source 3- Your concern as to Wang et al. is understandable. Their article is easy to misinterpret. It mentions lab leak just twice: In spite of the widespread hypotheses/“theories” of laboratory leakage ... it is unlikely a laboratory product ... The origin-tracing progress has long been hindered by ... widespread laboratory leakage hypothesis. As you can see, though, they're talking about accidental leakage of a laboratory product. For whatever reason, these scientists (all in China) don't bring up our posited accidental leakage of a natural product. We owe it to them not to read their silence on this issue as implying that they're somehow "skeptical". They may just have chosen their words carefully. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. 1 : Might have read quickly, but what I said is certainly not a BLP violation, and this trivial error is not substantial to my criticism that it still is the opinion of only one person, and reported as such in the source.
 * Re. 2 : Yes, picking odd sentences out of context is "selective quoting/misrepresentation", whether it is merely an unintended consequence of a lack of rigour, or otherwise. And with the Wang paper, it is rather obvious, denial notwithstanding: "draw[ing] conclusions" is entirely out of context how you presented it. The full relevant paragraph is:


 * Clearly, this is more about not drawing conclusions about the natural reservoir of the virus than it is about not drawing conclusions as to whether it came via lab or otherwise. Not only that, but temporarily ignoring point 3 below, the fact that, of course, authors point out that "the location of the first outbreak might not be the place of origin" clearly puts their view into context...
 * Re. 3 : We expressly can't "read" anything from their "silence on this issue". If they don't mention "this" issue, then they're not a useable source for "this" issue (they might of course be useable for other stuff); whether their words were just intentionally careful or otherwise, since doing so would be rather obvious WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Not much more to add than this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re 1- Thank you for acknowledging your error (asserting that the source isn't an expert on viruses). Professor Wood, a veterinary epidemiologist, is head of veterinary medicine at the University of Cambridge. He thus speaks with greater institutional authority than any scholar we've yet cited. And he says more likely.
 * Re 2- It looks like you're still misreading my statement. You appear to think I was quoting Frutos et al. I cited Hassan et al., not Frutos et al.
 * Re 3- Thank you for concurring. –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. 1 And this is not Wikiquote; and whether Cambridge is ranked among the top universities does not grant more authority to Wood: he is still one person giving an opinion. They might be an acceptable source for their opinion, and of course if we were seeking to rebut some conspiracy claim, an opinion from a recognised scholar would be sufficient, but here we're trying to make a summary of the scholarly publications on the matter, which is a different thing than merely rebutting nutjobs.
 * Re. 2 You also quoted (two words) from Wang et al. (as you clearly mention them as your source: Wang et al. (in Cell Research [Shanghai]), tells researchers worldwide not to "draw conclusions"), and I've demonstrated that the two word quotation was indeed well out of context. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is it generally considered far more likely? Seems that it may be more useful to explain to the reader why, rather than just a bare statement. My understanding (which may be wrong or incomplete) is that: Don't see any text in the article discussing this or supporting far more likely. fiveby(zero) 15:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Many more opportunities for infection occur outside the lab than by researchers working with viruses. I think Linfa Wang mentioned 3-4 orders of magnitude more chances outside the lab.
 * Nature is much better at creating new viruses than any lab.


 * I don’t think much more is any better supported than far more. This is a political and scientific controversy, and no consensus has been declared by political or scientific bodies, so we should not declare such a consensus here. See also Havana syndrome. LondonIP (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

A related POV question
About a week ago, a contributor provided a representative selection of 4 biomedical publications from the LitCovid database, which seemed (at first sight) to "all head in the same direction as the Holmes paper and previous sources". He later added a most helpful supplementary source. To summarize my analysis:

1. Loeb, in Veterinary Record (London), supports more likely:

2. Frutos et al., &quot;Origin of COVID-19&quot; (18 September 2021), in Environmental Research (New York), is clarified by Frutos et al., &quot;There Is No ‘Origin’ to SARS-CoV-2&quot; (6 October 2021). The latter doesn't really seem to support much more likely:

3. Wang et al., in Cell Research (Shanghai), does support much more likely.

4. Wu et al., in Cell Discovery (Shanghai), doesn't say anything that would support either description.

My conclusion: Judging from the sources provided, we can no longer represent "most scientists" as believing that a natural origin of SARS-COV-2 is much more likely. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) 06:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * My conclusion - Judging from the sources above, and those referenced in numerous discussions on Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, we can continue to represent "most scientists" as believing that a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 is "much more likely". This is the same argument as "Can we say "highly likely?" on that other talk page, but with different clothes on. There has been no contrapositive, and no countering evidence provided, that would shift this assessment or indicate that a shift has actually occurred. The above sources are not the best available. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * on 1. I'd point out that the British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA) congress was held September 4-7, before the Darpa information was leaked, has James Wood commented on this? 2 was last updated 17 September 2021. 3 and 4 were published September 29, and presumably written before the the 23rd Intercept article. 2600:8804:6600:C4:3810:149:B7D5:A6D6 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * None of that matters. We're not going to give credence to newspapers or activists groups over scientists, now or any time of the day or night. Science is slow to change, and Wikipedia follows, certainly not preempts, that change. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay buddy. 2600:8804:6600:C4:3810:149:B7D5:A6D6 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:CRYSTAL. You're arguing we ignore policy. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:1AM: In general, whichever side has the most reliable sources and follows those sources the closest prevails. and The problem is that for every case where the one is upholding policy, there are at least a hundred cases where he only thinks he is. The newer you are, the more likely it is that you are wrong about this. Having more than one or two editors who all misunderstand Wikipedia policy doesn't happen very often... — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it also wikipedia policy to completely ignore many credible sources that discuss ecohealth's possible ties to a lab leak? There is a whole section for "Renewed media attention". 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:47 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What text would you like to insert? Suggest some and we can workshop it to make sure it's WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I believe if we put our heads together we can come up with a fair, accurate and unbiased summary of this Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:47 (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I explain above, almost none of that content is WP:DUE or WP:NPOV. It essentially says: "Daszak is wrong, lab leak theories have all this new evidence that EcoHealth did experiments, and there was a coverup." That's not encyclopedic, and it certainly isn't DUE.Here's a more NPOV version: And some sources to support it:    and others —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Shibbolethink's 4th source - South China Morning Post (HK) - says: Documents from a purported whistle-blower ... have started another frenzy over bat virus research in China. His 2nd source - Engber, in the Atlantic - explains why:
 * His 3rd source - Kormann, in the New Yorker - treats the "risks" aspect as significant to this topic:
 * Per NPOV#BALASP we ought to mention this aspect too. –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no support in the references for Most scientists agree that this type of genetic engineering could not have created SARS-CoV-2, as it lacks a viable virus backbone. The Health Feedback link is from March and concerns RaTG13. fiveby(zero) 11:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Health Feedback source is about more than RaTG13. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I see, "Most scientists agree that this type of genetic engineering could not have created SARS-CoV-2" is an understatement, as I have found absolutely nothing in support of such a theory. None of the papers above, or of the reviews listed under NOLABLEAK that everybody knows of, suggests this is even a possible route: they're pretty darn unanimous that SARS-CoV-2 was not "deliberately engineered", either at the FCS or elsewhere. Frutos (back in March) spends a good bit debunking specifically the claim about the FCS, as does Holmes in the more recent review. We should not spread misinformation about this by confounding which variants of the lab leak are plausible and which were and remain conspiracist nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "as I have found absolutely nothing in support of such a theory." If you have time please read the telegraph article. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/10/05/wuhan-us-scientists-planned-create-new-coronaviruses-funding/ 2600:8804:6600:C4:3810:149:B7D5:A6D6 (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The key word here is "in scientific papers". The funding proposal was rejected, as you also already know... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The work describes generating full-length bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are thought to pose a risk of human spillover. And that’s the type of work that people could plausibly postulate could have led to a lab-associated origin of SARS-CoV-2 from Bloom. You need a source that specifically mentions the DARPA proposal if you want to talk about what most scientists think could not have happened. fiveby(zero) 18:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there are sources which explicitly talk about the FCS (the supposed target of the never-happened DARPA proposal), and they say it was not engineered. A funding proposal which was rejected, which has so far no mention in actual scientific publications as being relevant to the topic, is not a reason to consider these sources outdated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We customarily do "give credence to newspapers over scientists". And this is based on common sense. Most educated people (scientists included) tend not to trust even a well-established scientist's important new discovery until it's been replicated; but we understand that a reporter at a well-established news outlet can't risk making important false statements of fact. (The Reliable sources checklist essay is helpful here.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC) 06:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a complete misunderstanding of WP:BESTSOURCES/WP:SCHOLARSHIP and a preferring of an essay over a guideline/policy... We aren't citing individual edge-case scientists making wild claims that are unsupported. We are citing the consensus of large groups of scientists as assessed by numerous academic review articles. Big difference. We also know that newspapers, even science desks, tend to often misunderstand or misinterpret scientific findings. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mandatory phdcomics link for why we wouldn't/shouldn't cite news reporting of a "new discovery" (in addition to the good points by Shibboleth). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We customarily do "give credence to newspapers over scientists". Strongly disagree.
 * Per the essay WP:SCIRS: A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure, nor should they be considered when describing what aspects of a field the relevant experts consider interesting, surprising, or controversial. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story; good quality science news articles will indicate their sources.
 * Per the guideline WP:MEDPOP: The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles.
 * And per the policy WP:SOURCES: If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science.
 * If you're aware of places where we're prioritizing news articles when they conflict with secondary, peer-reviewed science, please correct it because that's not how WP works. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To be precise, Wikipedia gives credence to newspapers over biomedical scientists, more often than not.
 * See, for example, the MEDPRI guideline. In the biomedical field, most papers reporting results of in vitro experiments are given no credence at all—because >¾ can't be replicated.
 * Not so for most articles in respected mainstream newspapers (per SOURCES, which is policy).
 * The biggest exception? Any newspaper article that gives credence to ("touts") those scientists' unreplicated findings. –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC) 08:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to be misinterpreting WP:MEDRS as well. The issue of replication is solved by using secondary scientific sources, such as meta-analyses, review articles, and official statements of scientific organizations. The guideline explicitly directs us not to use news media for biomedical claims: Note that health-related content in the general news media should not normally be used to source biomedical content in Wikipedia articles. (News sources may be useful for non-biomedical content, such as information about "society and culture" – see WP:MEDPOP.) Once again, I have no idea where you're getting the idea that we should be giving deference to the news media over peer-reviewed science (especially secondary sources of it) for scientific information. You appear to be interpreting WP:PAGs backwards on this. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

To the contrary. Perhaps you've misread my comments, which are all about biomedical scientists (7 places) and their typically unreplicated findings (4 places). Scientists like, let's say, Shi Zhengli, and her in vitro findings:

Our bio cites Shi team's letter, Bloomberg News, and the New York Times. Why? See MEDRS:

This guideline would (by reasonable analogy) let us use general news media for claims about Shi's inventing or (inadvertently) releasing any noteworthy viruses. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are miscommunicating. My concern is the broadness with which you said We customarily do "give credence to newspapers over scientists". Outside of narrow, non-scientific claims this is not the case. I'll clarify my concerns with your latest analogy.
 * Regarding unreplicated findings, the solution is using secondary WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources, not news sources. Our WP:PAGs rightly point out that news media are likely to amplify unreplicated primary studies, and your suggestion that journalists can't risk making important false statements of fact is not proven out in actuality. If anything, the sensationalism of "Study finds thing cures cancer" makes news media less reliable than even the original primary scientific sources, let alone the secondary science that's our gold standard.
 * Following your reference to WP:MEDRS, I'd like to point out two things. One is that the comparison between a public release of a medication where details are not in dispute and speculation about an undisclosed scientific experiment and its consequences is so divergent as to be pointless. For clarity, the difference is that the former is non-scientific info, the latter is scientific info. And WP:PAGs are clear that we have different sourcing requirements for the two.
 * Second is that your WP:MEDRS citation directly disagrees your original point. Per WP:RS: Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Full stop, we should be in agreement, news media should not be "given credence" over scientific sources regarding scientific information.
 * Now, we might have a discussion remaining on how we source 'scientific consensus', and whether journalistic sources are reliable relative to academic letters. But I hope this puts the broader "credence" question to bed. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * and, I am glad you have come to an agreement. Now about that discussion on how we source "scientific consensus", I’d like to point out that COVID-19 origins​​ is both a political and scientific controversy, so WP:SCHOLARSHIP is not the only pertinent sourcing policy. According to WP:CRYSTALBALL, we cannot make unverifiable speculation or presumptions, and since the WHO’s SAGO has yet to draw any conclusions on COVID origins, and since SAGO is the supreme scientific authority on virus origin tracing, we cannot claim a academic consensus here. We should instead describe this as the political and scientific controversy it is, providing full context for our readers and allowing them to draw their own conclusions. We did not claim a scientific consensus on the cause of the 2001 anthrax attacks till the investigation into it were completed, nor do we claim a consensus today on the cause of Havana syndrome and on the many other ailments of unknown cause. If we must go to an RfC over this, perhaps , , and can help with writing a WP:RFCNEUTRAL statement, given their experience with the recent President of Venezuela RfC. LondonIP (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Except we are not making unverifiable speculation or presumptions. We are reporting what the existing high-quality sources (like the review papers by qualified scientists) are saying. This being a political controversy does not mean that the scientific mainstream gets to be thrown under the bus. There are plenty of sources (including even from lab leak proponents) which quite correctly indicate that the existing consensus is that this is of natural origin. Scientists are unanimous that this was certainly not engineered in a lab (hence we report it as a fact). We correctly report that there is some controversy about the virus possibly having been a natural sample which was escaped through laboratory manipulation, although again we report that most scientists say this is quite unlikely. There are again plenty of sources for this second point. None has been presented to put either of these assertions into doubt. There's not much to add here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Scientists are unanimous that this was certainly not engineered in a lab" If I can find one scientist that says that it might be engineered, will you stop repeating this? 2600:1700:8660:E180:DCE6:34BB:7444:AB26 (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add WP:MAINSTREAM. Mainstream scientists (as opposed to individual dissidents and people with no relevant qualifications), as evidenced by their publications in reputable journals (like the sources you are already aware of). "Unanimous", of course, I should have said "near unanimous"; or more likely, as reported by Frutos et al. back in March: "There is consensus within the scientific community to consider that SARS-CoV-2 has not been engineered and is a naturally occurring virus." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:CRYSTALBALL, we cannot make unverifiable speculation or presumptions, and since the WHO’s SAGO has yet to draw any conclusions on COVID origins, and since SAGO is the supreme scientific authority on virus origin tracing, we cannot claim a academic consensus here. I agree with using SAGO in the future as our point of consensus, but why not stick with the WHO's prior report as the authoritative source until then? Sure, there are those opposed to the first report's conclusions, but to discard the WHO's official assessment on those grounds would be "unverifiable speculation or presumption". Bakkster Man (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My main point is that this is a political and scientific controversy, and that WP:SCHOLARSHIP is not the only pertinent sourcing policy, and keeps high-quality new sources on the roster. About the WHO-convened global study of the origins of SARS-CoV-2, it is clear from the newly created WHO Secretariat article and the reference it cites, that it was by the authority of the WHO Director-General that it was convened, which makes his criticism of their report all the more significant. Peter Ben Embarek, the head of that mission is reported to have said they were pressured investigation to drop lab-leak hypothesis, which is significant in terms of determining the credibility of the report and the veracity of its findings. The report is certainly not the official assessment of the WHO as you put it, and the PRC has lambasted the WHO secretariat over this in its state media, and in its public diplomacy channels, saying it hopes the WHO Secretariat and SAGO will take the first phase of joint study as the basis . LondonIP (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, so until SAGO completes their report, the first phase of the joint study remains their official position. It might change, but we can't WP:CRYSTAL it. Bakkster Man (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The first phase of the WHO’s joint study isn't the WHO’s official position. WP:CRYSTAL would apply to SAGO’s future conclusions, not the assessments made in the joint study’s March 2021 report. LondonIP (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase: The March 2021 report remains the latest study published by the WHO. They haven't unpublished, retracted, superseded, or otherwise obsoleted the report yes, so its status as far as the WHO has published is the same today as it was in March. My mention of CRYSTAL was relating to the perceived suggestion that the WHO report would be retracted as a result of criticism. If Tedros wanted to retract the report, he has the power to do so, but he has not. WP:OR/WP:SYNTH also applies to such an interpretation (to wit, that a selective reading of the statements which welcome [the] report be presented as if the report is not credible). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's what "our WP:PAGs rightly point out" (at MEDRS):
 * As the RSVETTING essay usefully notes:
 * More important to this page, however, we've got a 5-month-old consensus here that pandemic origins aren't an academic topic.
 * What all this means: We welcome contributions from editors who trust academic publications AND those who give more credence to respected mainstream newspapers. –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * More important to this page, however, we've got a 5-month-old consensus here that pandemic origins aren't an academic topic. This seems to be a misinterpretation of our consensus point 2, which is that it's not WP:BMI requiring WP:MEDRS sourcing. Unless you're referring to point 1, and suggesting that it's not an academic topic because it's a conspiracy theory. Bakkster Man (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also not that it's "not BMI", it's that parts that were never BMI are still not, and parts that are BMI are still BMI. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For reference, ProcrastinatingReader posted here (on 18 July 2021) a copy of the Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus) template, including this well-established point: The epistemological significance of this consensus point is treated in depth on that template talk page. The practical implications are summarized in WP:SOURCE policy. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be more clear if you're intending to disagree with what I said, regarding biomedical information and academic topics not being equivalent to one another. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As the OP of this thread I would like to apologise to passing readers for the confusing mess of words this discussion has become, and the confusing state of haze you must be in from this entire talk page. Perhaps I'll check back in another month to see where we're at with this. 92.3.148.67 (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

US Senate "9/11 style" commission bill introduced
Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) today introduced legislation to create a 9/11-style commission to investigate the COVID-19 outbreak and identify lessons learned regarding U.S. preparedness, response and recovery to improve our ability to respond to future outbreaks. https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/11/feinstein-marshall-gillibrand-ernst-introduce-bill-to-create-9-11-style-covid-19-commission 2600:1700:8660:E180:810F:4EE6:EF97:C7CB (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can add that to COVID-19 commissions. LondonIP (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Refideas
Rather than the slo-mo edit warring, let's discuss the recent addition of the refideas template. It's a redundant fork of the sources list at the top. I don't understand why it's being added. It's an entirely arbitrary emphasis in favour of certain preferred sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fact is, three out of the four sources in the refideas are already at the relevant sub-page (of which the editor who's been adding the refideas template is certainly aware, having edited it rather recently...). In any case, it's bad form to edit war over a talk page template, much more so when it's indeed redundant and when there have been multiple objections to it... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * BBC News (&quot;Why the Wuhan Lab-Leak Theory Is Being Taken Seriously&quot;) is a high-quality source which I posted in X-Editor's Refideas template and which LondonIP later restored. To quote WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors. Don't remove it a second time. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing preventing you adding it a the appropriate place (which you have yourself helpfully linked below). The rest of your comment needs no reply, not only because it assumes bad faith but because it is at the wrong venue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That transcluded list ("Lab leak theory sources") has served its purpose well here (and maybe elsewhere too). Most of the higher-quality sources have now been included in this article. For our purposes here, it's now mainly (90%) used sources + unused lower-quality sources. The Refideas template is for listing just high-quality sources that have not yet been included in this particular article. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When I originally started that list, its purpose was effectively a refideas but not as a talk page template (because mobile editors can't see those, and it would quickly get overwhelming). I'm not sure all those refs are incorporated, because there's a lot of content matter not discussed in the article (some perhaps because it shouldn't be discussed), and the bulk of sources on most topics are journal ones not news ones, so the numbers would suggest the majority of journalism sources aren't used for example. The list as it stands currently turned into a convenient structured repository of sources discussing the lab leak, which itself has article-building usefulness, so I wouldn't say we should remove used ones, but nevertheless,we could look into emphasising not used sources in the list (using a star preceding, or by greying out the used ones, for example). It would have been better to discuss your concern and we come up with a better solution, such as those I just mentioned, rather than edit war in a forked refideas template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to "grey out the used ones" in this particular article's Talk page without thereby greying out some of the unused ones in those 7 other articles' Talk pages? –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. You can use the PAGENAME Help:magic word and show (or not show) markup based on that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I would like this solution. I think adding an emoticon or template or icon selectively is precisely the right solution for this issue. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * BTW, if (as you say) there are lower quality sources in the sources list, I would suggest we just remove those. Helps focus attention on the decent ones. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Huanan Seafood Market reloaded
So, there is one new article on Science that looks with detail into the early Wuhan cases and finds that the Huanan Seafood Market still holds high stakes of being the place where the spillover ocurred. Also on this, the New York Times echoed the sentiment, or at least reported on it favorably, in a recent piece. Including this revived hypothesis would require us to: i) go into detail on the early cases ii) echo claims that the WHO report had flaws in important areas, like documenting the early cases with precision. Forich (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The Science article is an interesting opinion piece about that first known superspreader event. The NYTimes story concludes with quotes from Ian Lipkin (“It’s two years ago and it’s still murky”) and Alina Chan (“The main issue this points out,” she said, “is that there’s a lack of access to data, and there are errors in the WHO-China report”). –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding Mojiang miners and Sick WIV workers as a claim
An editor objected to me adding this edit to the DRASTIC page, due to the sources not contextualising and crediting this claim to that group, so perhaps it belongs here instead? 217.35.76.147 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * and, since you opposed my request to decrease the protection of this page, can you assist in editing this section? Assuming you think it is WP:DUE of course. LondonIP (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * was the one who reworked it last on that article. It probably needs to be mentioned somewhere, although whether we need to mention DRASTIC explicitly (were they the only ones to argue for this? they're certainly not the only group to have been spreading the lab leak theory) is a slightly different question. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has to mention DRASTIC, but TheSeeker268 is the one credited with finding the theses before the group even formed (and who knows how long it will even last). The main claim is that some miners are alleged to have died from a SARS-like illness, which taken together with the finding that RaTG13 was also collected from the same mineshaft in Mojiang, leading to Fauci to urge the Chinese government to share more information. I just noticed that we are missing a section on the intelligence about sick WIV workers that Fauci also mentions in the same call on China about the Mojiang miners, which was even more widely reported and also denied by the Chinese gov. LondonIP (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as it's WP:NPOV, and well-sourced content balanced with the mainstream view. I personally have no issue with including this. Why don't you write a draft, @LondonIP, and we can all edit it together here on the talk page before coming to a consensus in favor of its addition. That is typically the best way to make controversial alterations. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Formerly 217.35.76.147 21:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't reviewed the specific text under dispute, but I do think the Mojiang miners stuff should be mentioned here in some form or another. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can write a working draft of the sentence(s) mentioning the mojiang miners. A good strategy for this in my opinion is to to look around the New Yorker recent piece on the lab leak, which did great unbiased coverage of the controversies. If they mention the mojiang miners we can try their angle, too. I'll try to work on this during the weekend Forich (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposed draft:  This draft requires proper citing to the sources, I used solely the one from the New Yorker but feel free to add others. Forich (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This has many issues in language and level of detail. The twitter user name is not necessary; as is the name of the couple, and many other details (and "scientist couple" is excessively vague: what kind of "scientists" where they? virologists? biologists? something entirely unrelated?). This also lacks required context from recent scientific sources (required to put the minority view [that this is actually a "related event that could help complete the picture of the emergence of the picture", something which is improperly stated in Wikivoice]). dismissing any link between the Mojiang miners and COVID-19 on various grounds, including the clinical data not matching with typical COVID-19 cases, and the large time-gap between these two events (as well as the significant differences between the known sequence of RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with RC, needs a rewording. My proposal:
 * Where do you think this would be inserted? Reword the current Laboratory proximity to pandemic origin location section to include all proximity examples? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also largely agree with RC. Yours is an improvement, although I have some concerns over vague language like "others drew connections", "some raised concerns", etc. Are we talking about scientists or hobbyists? What came of the event? Some further info could probably be added as well (iirc didn't they retest the samples?). I would like to see reference to any scholarly discussion of the issue, if any exists, as they'd be best placed to comment on the actual significance of the event. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The context of the elements matters, and I mostly focused on making it more encyclopedic. Does the lack of inclusion in the original study suggest natural or lab origin? Does the lack of SARS-like antibodies indicate natural or lab origin? Is this a 'gotcha' claim, or an attempt to read relevance into unrelated events? I also feel like dealing with DRASTIC is tough, they kinda fall through the cracks of our WP:PAGs with attribution and reliability. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's this by Frutos et al. which is explicitly about this. Holmes also mentions RaTG13 and how any link between it and COVID-19 is tenuous at best: In contrast, bat virus RaTG13 from the WIV has reportedly never been isolated or cultured and only exists as a nucleotide sequence assembled from short sequencing reads (Cohen, 2020). The three cultured viruses were isolated from fecal samples through serial amplification in Vero E6 cells, a process that consistently results in the loss of the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site (Davidson et al., 2020; Klimstra et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020b; Ogando et al., 2020; Sasaki et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2021b). It is therefore highly unlikely that these techniques would result in the isolation of a SARSCoV-2 progenitor [...] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * here's a reworking:needs more inline sources but it's all in there. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this draft is good enough to go into the article (with the inline refs), with iterative development from there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This Reuters article is an essential reference, as Fauci has called on the Chinese government to share data relating to this incident, which they have yet to do. Any claim by the SZL that the miners died of a fungal infection, and not a SARS-like disease, should be attributed. George Gao is on record as saying it was apparently a SARS-like illness, so they have contradicted themselves on this. LondonIP (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * who is "they" ? Scientists can have different opinions. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly, contradictory WP:OPINIONS. Francesco espo (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I was just confused by the poor grammar of the preceding comment. It's now clear that "SZL" means "Shi Zheng Li" and "the" was an accidental inclusion. But notice that above, I asked for a draft and said I would help edit it. As others have above. Why are you arguing about this instead of working on the drafts above? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I like Shibbolethink's draft and would approve moving it in. Forich (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like there's rough agreement (and at least no objections) to adding your revision of the draft to the article. Although it would need the inline sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do it when I get a chance - Hospital's been kinda rough lately :P —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your edit makes use of a straw man argument that RaTG13 may have been the ancestor of SARS-COV-2, which is not supported by the best sources on this topic. I am not opposed to mentioning it, because this straw man was used also by scientists quoted in RS, but it should reflect more accurately the claims that were made, and by whom. Deigin is credited as being one of the first to make the claim in a peer reviewed paper, and we have another peer reviewed paper, which does not make use of that straw man. I understand this is a complex topic and that this was a mistake made in good faith, but we have discussed this elsewhere . Shi revealed that the WIV had eight more SARS-like viruses they had collected along with RaTG13, which they have yet to disclose, besides one named RaTG15. LondonIP (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

NYTimes on lab leaks, in general
Adding here this piece from the New York Times, it has lots of good content to sprinkle over the covid origin articles in Wikipedia. Forich (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)