Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 12

Splitting "Wuhan Lab Leak Story" and merging the two "Bioweapon" conspiracy theories.
It seems that it might be a good idea to split the "Wuhan Lab Leak Story" into two sections. The first being the conspiracy theory that it was a bioweapon that was accidentally or deliberately released from a lab, and the second being the theory that it was under study at the lab before being accidentally leaked. Conflating the two is likely to lead to misunderstanding and confusion on behalf of readers as to exactly what is under discussion when the "Lab Leak Hypothesis" is discussed, particularly in light of recent developments. In conjunction with these developments it might also result in some of them considering the bioweapon conspiracy theory as credible, something that would be irresponsible of us to allow.

There is also some overlap between the conspiracy theory that COVID is a Chinese bioweapon and that it is an American bioweapon. It might best to merge those two together, both to remove the overlap and because the American conspiracy theory is in part a response to the Chinese conspiracy theory.

Option One contains the split and the subsequent merge. In this option the format has changed, the content it contains is almost identical to what currently exists. The only notable change is the removal of "and Chunying continued to cite evidence on Twitter", as neither source made reference to this, and the use of the word "evidence" in regards to a conspiracy theory needs very strong verification.

Option Two contains only the split. If this option is preferred, someone will still need to go into the "United States biological weapon" section and remove the line "and Chunying continued to cite evidence on Twitter". This option contains no notable content changes, with the sections simply being drawn out depending on what they relate to.

For either option, the section on "Wuhan Lab Leak Story" will need further work once split, but that can wait till after the split, in order to avoid this discussion being derailed by that.

Bioweapon Conspiracy Theory
Conspiracy theories related to the possibility that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was developed as bio-weapon have gained popularity during the pandemic. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines. According to the World Health Organization, intentional bio-engineering of SARS-CoV-2 has been ruled out by genomic analysis.

One early source of the bio-weapon origin was former Israeli secret service officer Dany Shoham, who gave an interview to The Washington Times about the Wuhan laboratory. The Epoch Times, a newspaper affiliated with Falun Gong, refers to the SARS-CoV-2 virus as the "CCP virus", and a commentary in the newspaper posed the question, "is the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan an accident occasioned by weaponizing the virus at that [Wuhan P4 virology] lab?" One scientist from Hong Kong, Li-Meng Yan, fled China and released a preprint stating the virus was modified in a lab rather than having a natural evolution. In an ad hoc peer-review (the paper was not submitted for traditional peer review as part of the standard scientific publishing process), her claims were labelled as misleading, not scientific, and an unethical promotion of "essentially conspiracy theories that are not founded in fact". Yan's paper was funded by the Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law Foundation, two non-profits linked to Steve Bannon, a former Trump strategist, and Guo Wengui, an expatriate Chinese billionaire. This misinformation was further seized on by the American far-right, whose anti-Chinese sentiment is increasingly allied with the political aims of the Chinese diaspora. In effect, this formed "a fast-growing echo chamber for misinformation".

In response to propagation of the "lab" origin theory in the US, the Chinese government has promulgated its own version of the conspiracy theory, claiming that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the United States at the U.S. biological weapons lab Fort Detrick. This conspiracy theory was alleged in March 2020 by two spokesmen for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zhao Lijian and Geng Shuang, who claimed during a press conference that Western powers may have "bio-engineered" the coronavirus. It was later renewed by Hua Chunying. It quickly went trending on the Chinese social media platform Weibo, and Chunying asked the government of the United States to open up Fort Detrick for further investigation to determine if it is the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

According to London-based The Economist, plenty of conspiracy theories exist on China's internet about COVID-19 being the CIA's creation to keep China down. According to an investigation by ProPublica, such conspiracy theories and disinformation have been propagated under the direction of China News Service, the country's second largest government-owned media outlet controlled by the United Front Work Department. Global Times and Xinhua News Agency have similarly been implicated in propagating disinformation related to COVID-19's origins. NBC News however has noted that there have also been debunking efforts of US-related conspiracy theories posted online, with a WeChat search of "Coronavirus is from the U.S." reported to mostly yield articles explaining why such claims are unreasonable. for example the CPC-owned newspaper Global Times.

On 22 February 2020, US officials alleged that Russia is behind an ongoing disinformation campaign, using thousands of social media accounts on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to deliberately promote unfounded conspiracy theories, claiming the virus is a biological weapon manufactured by the CIA and the US is waging economic war on China using the virus.

According to Washington DC-based nonprofit Middle East Media Research Institute, numerous writers in the Arabic press have promoted the conspiracy theory that COVID-19, as well as SARS and the swine flu virus, were deliberately created and spread to sell vaccines against these diseases, and it is "part of an economic and psychological war waged by the U.S. against China with the aim of weakening it and presenting it as a backward country and a source of diseases".

The same theory has been reported via Iranian propaganda "to damage its culture and honor". Reza Malekzadeh, Iran's deputy health minister and former Minister of Health, rejected claims that the virus was a biological weapon, pointing out that the US would be suffering heavily from it. He said Iran was hard-hit because its close ties to China and reluctance to cut air ties introduced the virus, and because early cases had been mistaken for influenza.

The theory has also circulated in the Philippines and Venezuela.

Wuhan Lab Leak Story
Though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unfounded speculation related to the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic.

A World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the laboratory origin scenario as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence, yet misinformation about the evidence and likelihood of this scenario has been widespread. Definitively proving or disproving a "lab" related origin of the virus is a difficult and lengthy process, and long investigations are required to provide a definitive proof or disproof of any theory of the virus's origin. WHO researcher Peter Daszak said "The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan".

US politicians began spreading the unproven theories of a "lab" origin, including Republican Senators Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, as well as then-President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Many scientists and authorities countered that the theories had no evidence to support the claims being made, including NIAID director Anthony Fauci and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. One popular idea used to support the "lab" origin hypothesis invokes previous gain-of-function research on coronaviruses to support the idea that the virus was of laboratory origin. Virologist Angela Rasmussen writes that this is unlikely, due to the intense scrutiny and government oversight gain-of-function research is subject to, and it is improbable that research on hard-to obtain coronaviruses could occur under the radar.

Chinese Bioweapon Conspiracy Theory
Conspiracy theories related to the possibility that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was developed as bio-weapon have gained popularity during the pandemic. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines. According to the World Health Organization, intentional bio-engineering of SARS-CoV-2 has been ruled out by genomic analysis.

One early source of the bio-weapon origin was former Israeli secret service officer Dany Shoham, who gave an interview to The Washington Times about the Wuhan laboratory. The Epoch Times, a newspaper affiliated with Falun Gong, refers to the SARS-CoV-2 virus as the "CCP virus", and a commentary in the newspaper posed the question, "is the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan an accident occasioned by weaponizing the virus at that [Wuhan P4 virology] lab?" One scientist from Hong Kong, Li-Meng Yan, fled China and released a preprint stating the virus was modified in a lab rather than having a natural evolution. In an ad hoc peer-review (the paper was not submitted for traditional peer review as part of the standard scientific publishing process), her claims were labelled as misleading, not scientific, and an unethical promotion of "essentially conspiracy theories that are not founded in fact". Yan's paper was funded by the Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law Foundation, two non-profits linked to Steve Bannon, a former Trump strategist, and Guo Wengui, an expatriate Chinese billionaire. This misinformation was further seized on by the American far-right, whose anti-Chinese sentiment is increasingly allied with the political aims of the Chinese diaspora. In effect, this formed "a fast-growing echo chamber for misinformation".

In response to propagation of the "lab" origin theory in the US, the Chinese government has promulgated its own version of the conspiracy theory, claiming that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the United States at the U.S. biological weapons lab Fort Detrick.

Wuhan Lab Leak Story
Though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unfounded speculation related to the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic.

A World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the laboratory origin scenario as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence, yet misinformation about the evidence and likelihood of this scenario has been widespread. Definitively proving or disproving a "lab" related origin of the virus is a difficult and lengthy process, and long investigations are required to provide a definitive proof or disproof of any theory of the virus's origin. WHO researcher Peter Daszak said "The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan".

US politicians began spreading the unproven theories of a "lab" origin, including Republican Senators Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, as well as then-President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Many scientists and authorities countered that the theories had no evidence to support the claims being made, including NIAID director Anthony Fauci and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. One popular idea used to support the "lab" origin hypothesis invokes previous gain-of-function research on coronaviruses to support the idea that the virus was of laboratory origin. Virologist Angela Rasmussen writes that this is unlikely, due to the intense scrutiny and government oversight gain-of-function research is subject to, and it is improbable that research on hard-to obtain coronaviruses could occur under the radar.

BilledMammal (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on proposals

 * That is some heavy lifting and excellent suggestions. I think I'm leaning towards option 1. It is starting to become counter productive with the protection on the page as it no longer seems to be a controversial issue. It seems this was a controversial issue because there used to be different views in silly American politics. Nakerlund (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it’s fair anymore to call the “accidental lab leak” hypothesis unfounded and a conspiracy theory. With all mainstream media, the Biden administrations and even Dr. Anthony Fauci now taking it seriously, the page should be NPOV about this hypothesis: it’s not the mainstream idea, but it’s a serious and viable hypothesis that is being considered by investigators and scientists. I like your idea of separating them, but the Text about the accidental leak need to make clear that it has been taken seriously. Eccekevin (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When you have the President of the United States saying that U.S. intelligence considers the lab leak theory and animal transmission theory "equally plausible", it's a given that Wikipedia can't call one of those two theories a "conspiracy theory." I support removing the lab leak theory section to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 ASAP.  Ergo Sum  15:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that Biden did not say they were "equally plausible," the article author did. Let's not attribute quotes to the wrong people here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Biden referred to them as the "two likely scenarios".  Ergo Sum  16:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There's a reason this kind of rewrite is normally placed on a sub-page. I've HATted the examples to keep us from being swamped with large amounts of article text, but I can't remember how to hide the massive section of citations below. This is going to make discussion difficult. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You place the reftalk in the collapsed section. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. "all mainstream media" - WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear that we prefer academic sources. See also this for why intelligence reports are dubious at best and a clear exercise in political grandstanding at worst (this bears many resemblances to the claims about WMDs in Iraq - experts saying, on one side, that something is unlikely; politicians, on the other, ploughing on ahead, regardless, for political reasons). We can report the existence of calls for investigations, and the existence of the theory, based on the popular press. Any claims about it's likelihood or mainstream science should, obviously, be left to scientists publishing in acceptable literature. Hence, the text should include A) a description of the theories (based on reputable newspapers, and the limited attention this has gotten in scientific journals) and B) clear indications as to their FRINGE status and arguments why (based on academic literature). See WikiProject Skepticism/Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition for an example (we just need to cut that down to a one-section thing and not a whole article. No comment on the above, I haven't read it yet. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I created User:Bakkster Man/Misinformation Sandbox as a possible starting place to sandbox this reorganization. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I really like this line of thinking. Can I propose a minor tweak, encompassing more of our existing?
 * Manufactured Origin
 * Bioweapons
 * WIV
 * Ft. Detrick
 * Jewish origin (In the Muslim world)
 * Other
 * Population control (vaccine profiteering, alternate Bill Gates conspiracy)
 * Lab Origin Misinformation
 * This gets a separation between misinformation about intentional bioengineering for release, and misinformation surrounding the relative likelihood and evidence for/against the possibility of an accidental release during routine research (which, now, may include early overreaction against any mention of a lab hypothesis as anything but "conspiracy"). Whether we drill down to subsections for each bioweapon theory or not depends how many redirects there are, I suppose. Within the Manufactured Origin section we can cite WHO deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release... has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome, and put the 'see also: Investigations' in Lab Origin Misinformation.
 * As mentioned above, I created User:Bakkster Man/Misinformation Sandbox as a place this can be sandboxed. Please edit there as we work through options, unless someone prefers a different sandbox location. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There’s a big issue, which is the text says that scientist dismiss the accidental leak theory because they believe in a zoonotic origin. That’s factually incorrect. It might be true for the weapon paragraph,but not for the accidental leak. An accidental leak could also have a zoonotic origin if it was a virus from the wild that was being a studied, and the sources say as much. This needs to be clarified. Eccekevin (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of the hypotheses, whether intentional weapon (ruled out) or accidental lab leak (extremely unlikely) are dismissed by most scientists, explicitly (the few papers which do mention it) or implicitly (the majority of papers which simply go ahead with saying that the virus is A) zoonotic, without any qualifier or B) very likely zoonotic). Anyway, this is easy. The burden of proof is on those saying there are scientific papers which support the lab leak. Find a couple, in reputable journals, and it will be absolutely non-controversial to include it as such. Otherwise, you know the answer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But that's the issue. The virus can be both zoonotic AND accidentally leaked, as the Science letter point out. It can have a zoonotic origin and was studied in the lab, but escaped accidentally. The scientific papers that saying the lab leak is unilely say so for a variety of reasons, but not for the reason it's zoonotic, because being zoonotic does not exclude a lab leak. The page currently, and wrongly, states that a zoonotic origin contradicts an accidental lab leak. Eccekevin (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this accurate? The zoonosis article doesn't appear to suggest that a lab contamination type infection would be considered zoonotic. Bakkster Man (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A virus can originate naturally in animals before it jumps to humans. Whether that happened in the Wuhan Seafood market or in a lab is a different matter, but both the point here is that it has a natural origin, not created as a bioweapon. Identifying a zoonotic origin though sequencing doesn't mean you can pinpoint where the jump happened, or exclude that it happened in a lab. Eccekevin (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * and, of the 260 or so known human viruses, over two thirds originated in various animal reservoirs, and are therefore zoonotic diseases. What characterises a Zoonosis or Zooanthroponosis is the transmission of disease between different types of natural reservoirs, and not specially the mechanism of transmission, which may or may not be natural. This is alluded to in the RFC, where I created a "Parts II and III" proposal, which another editor deleted . CutePeach (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so "likely zoonosis = likely that transmission didn't happen in a lab" is a fallacy. Eccekevin (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that if it's zoonotic, the weight of evidence strongly suggests that there's no need for a lab to get involved (there are much easier ways for a virus to get into humans, as happened before with many, many diseases, and will happen again no matter where COVID actually comes from, than it evading strong biosafety measures at a lab). In fact, I've already given my doubts about this, the hypothesis "a natural sample was accidentally released" is close to failing falsifiability, since to its most ardent supporters it would not be ruled out even by, say, a direct closely related ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 being found in the wild (let alone the absolute lack of evidence that the WIV had anything close enough to SARS-CoV-2). It's also not supported by any scientific paper, and scientists such as Ralph Baric are agreeing it's not really plausible. Quoted indirectly here: "The suggestion that it would have taken some Chinese science experiments to get the virus from bats in Yunnan to human beings in Wuhan seemed to leave him slightly affronted, on behalf of the natural world." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, "the virus can be both zoonotic AND accidentally leaked" (SARS-1 did leak from Chinese labs twice ). Moreover, it can be zoonotic, used in a WMD program, and accidentally leak (anthrax and Marburg leaked in Soviet WMD programs). All old-style biological WMD were of natural origin. We simply know nothing except that China almost certainly has an active WMD program, and if so, it would be strange if they did not experiment with viruses from their bats. "to get the virus from bats in Yunnan to human" - well, actually, there are no such bats in Wuhan. Bats infected by the closest "relative" of COVID-19 live in a different area of China, if I am not mistaken. My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since we're well in speculation territory anyway (and since the quote from Baric does not say "bats in Wuhan" but "bats in Yunnan"), it's also entirely possible (given how hard such a virus might have been to track without any test for it or the like, or possibly being confused with a regular seasonal illness, also considering the possibility of asymptomatic transmission) that the virus emerged entirely outside of Wuhan (an idea supported by scientific literature, given amongst other factors the lack of links to the seafood market of some early cases, and the fact that genomic analysis points to a root case a few weeks before the first identified ones). In either case, existing reliable sources agree that deliberate genetic manipulation would have left some trace, and there is none of it. So that leaves the possible "leak of a naturally collected sample", which is neither necessary nor particularly likely when compared with the alternative (odds of virus entering in contact with some random person in the wild >> odds of a virus escaping from a laboratory with stringent protocols). Ever heard of Occam's razor?
 * As for what reliable sources say, the paper by Frutos et al. seems to sum up the scientific aspect of this (as also reported in recent news articles, ex. ), by ruling out deliberate manipulation, as already done by Andersen et al. back in March 2020, and by saying "Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it." So, as this article says, or should be saying (correct it if it hasn't been updated), "[Accidental] lab leak possible, unlikely, no evidence to support it, not possible to rule out" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  02:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the sources above, these studies only did not find any obvious signs of significant genetic manipulations. However, these studies did not ruled out any minor artificial manipulations with virus (such as just a little of artificial selection) because this can not be proven or disproven solely from the sequence analysis, unless you find the exact population of bats where this virus originated from. Unless of course someone artificially re-introduced the virus back to a population of bats where the virus has not been previously present to "prove" that a genetically modified virus has a natural origin. I know, this is paranoid, but technically possible. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's worth pointing out, most sources when referring to the lab leak seem to place it exclusively contrary to zoonosis. This includes the Science letter calling for greater in the lab leak potential. Whether or not that's because it's presumed that some procedure in the lab resulted in the infection that zoonosis doesn't cover, I'm uncertain. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If, speaking hypothetically, "patient zero" was someone in a lab, this is still a zoonotic disease simply by definition. When they say in letter "Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident...", they only mean there are two alternative hypothetical options for the initial transmission: in a lab or not in a lab. Importantly, we are talking about the virus just being studied and accidently infecting someone. Of course if the virus was modified or underwent an artificial selection to infect people, that would not be zoonosis.My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fair. While there are examples of using 'zoonosis' as shorthand for 'zoonosis in a natural setting', they do seem to suggest both are accurately described as zoonosis. The zoonosis article implies this as well (and I wouldn't suggest we specify it with a Lab Incident category right now). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Fauci comments should be included among those scientists who do not view the lab leak as conspiracy theory
Anthony Fauci said:. It's beyond time that this page starts being honest about the lab leak hypothesis and treat is as it is, a scientific hypothesis that needs further investigation and validation rather than a conspiracy theory. The current page states that "the scientific opinion against it has remained steady" without providing any context or examples to the contrary. I think the page should state that there has been a change in attitude towards this hypothesis in the scientific community and that many scientists are open to the idea and call for more investigations. Also, the Fauci quote is a reminder that a lab leak is compatible with a natural origin.

Eccekevin (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fauci said that while it's possible, and a probe is welcome, a natural origin is still far more likely. Yet another news paper, NPR, which explicitly says that many scientists still agree that COVID is natural, to support this, quoting Fauci, among others: "A natural origin would be more in line with what's come in the past. "The historical basis for pandemics evolving naturally from an animal reservoir is extremely strong," Fauci told senators at a hearing earlier this week. Ebola, HIV and the major influenza viruses all came from nature, he said." Simply putting the quote you suggest, without any context, would be, as I write in the edit summary, misleading, because it would not give the reader a full context into the matter. Scientists are open to the idea of further investigations (not solely because of a possible but unlikely lab leak). Sure, write that. Don't quote experts out of context. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note that the article currently doesn't say the (accidental) lab leak is a conspiracy theory (only that it is not supported by most scientists), so I have no clue where you got that from, unless you confused two sections together. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If there's a reasonable concern that this is unclear, we can clarify this more elegantly than cramming a Fauci quote at the end. Perhaps making it more clear the WHO evaluated it because it's "a scientific hypothesis"? Bakkster Man (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The current page states that the "scientific opinion is against it". That's clearly an oversimplification that makes it seem like it's not a viable theory, and doesn't factor in the change of attitude of Anthony Fauci and many other scientists.Eccekevin (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I really think you're misunderstanding what Fauci has said, . He's still of the opinion that the natural origin theory is far and away the most probable option, and that the lab leak idea is much less likely. It just cannot be completely dismissed because more hard evidence is needed. Hence why a truly independent, open, and international investigation is needed. But he has never said the lab leak theory is particularly likely. Likewise, many conspiracy theories are "possible" they are just very very improbable. Like JFK truthers, conspiracies about the CIA and mind control, etc. All technically "possible" but extremely improbable.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft
I've started a draft at Draft:China_COVID-19_Cover-up that may be of interest to editors of this article. I could definitely use help improving it. See also related discussion at .Adoring nanny (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"Manipulation of uncertainty is being used to twist information on the subject"
That's the word salad that one editor used to justify re-inserting this Wired piece into this article. The Wired piece is itself a pretty impressive bit of word salad - one I could summarize as "We can't say for sure yet whether a lab leak occurred, but what I do know is that people I don't like are bringing it up for political ends I don't approve of." Ultimately it's just an opinion - a meaningless opinion, in this context, since this article is strictly about misinformation. Can we please have this article stick to actual facts? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You've been trying to remove that sentence for a while, first removing it entirely because it was only about "Bannon and a couple of guys"; then trying to remove a concrete link about misinformation. I don't know what isn't clear about "manipulation of uncertainty" - while it is true that we can't know for sure at this time, one of the hypotheses is still far more likely, despite the change in tone of the media: "Experts point out, however, that the renewed interest in this theory comes from a lack of information -- not from new evidence. "There is no new factual element that has moved the needle one way or the other," says Schwartz at the Pasteur Institute, noting that the natural transmission theory remains "the most plausible" explanation.";  At the assembly, Mike Ryan, director of health emergencies at the WHO, asked for less politicization of calls for an origin investigation, which have, in many ways, devolved into accusations. “Over the last number of days, we have seen more and more and more discourse in the media, with terribly little actual news, or evidence, or new material,” said Ryan. “This is disturbing.”... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  22:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, edit summaries can't be edited, but I probably meant to say "twist the debate"; which makes far more sense and is what the sources are telling us. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See also this piece (The Conversation is a reliable source, it publishes pieces by subject matter experts: see the entry at RSP) which explicitly makes the link: "But even if the lab-leak theory is credible and therefore worth pursuing, that doesn’t mean that politicians should publicly pursue it. In doing so, they may accidentally lend credibility to the many COVID-19 conspiracy theories that also revolve around a laboratory origin. For example, the conspiracy theory that SARS-CoV-2 is a Chinese biological weapon first created and later spread by the Wuhan Institute of Virology." and later "Publicly saying that the Wuhan lab-leak theory is plausible, to a distracted public, in a context rife with closely related disinformation, runs the risk of making this the case. The Biden administration may be right that the Wuhan lab-leak theory deserves a closer look. But it should be cautious, for the time being, of publicly saying as much." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an even purer distillation of the same sentiment: "it may be true, but people should stop talking about it". Whatever you think of that argument (I think it's paternalistic nonsense), it doesn't belong in an article that's explicitly about misinformation. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. What the source is saying is more clearly that promotion of the 'plausible' lab-leak leads/has also led to disinformation about the 'less plausible' (euphemism, you'll understand) lab-leak conspiracies. The only solution is to make it clear to our readers what the possible albeit unlikely (accidental release of a non-genetically manipulated sample) lab leak is, and that the other ones are pretty much pure bollocks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This sentence is now out of the Wikipedia article, so maybe there's no point discussing it further. I'll just say that this article is not the place for meta-analysis about information that's correct but should not be stated anyway, or that sort of thing. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Bullying of scientists
Every attempt to improve this article seems to make clearer why parts of this article were in bad shape for so long: because there are a few editors whose first instinct is to simply revert everyone else's changes. One editor keeps reinserting this sentence, for example, about the "online bullying" of scientists, which cites this Nature article. What's the cause of all this supposed bullying? Not actually misinformation, but rather the lab leak theory, which remains a viable theory. No problem, says the editor: maybe it's not misinformation, but it's "part of the misinformation campaign", whatever that means. This article would be better if everyone used common sense and not increasingly convoluted logic. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the point was the scientists were being countered with toxic rhetoric rather than science. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you think that's the point; the sentence in question says nothing about what these supposed bullies were saying (and neither does the Nature article, for that matter). Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I t may not say it, but text like "and even that Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), is involved" make it clear, that they are talking about the whole issue, both scientific skepticism and conspiracy theories (and thus misinformation). And does discuss how the questions (for example the letter) are being "misrepresented".Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. If the unevidenced claims are being used to fuel rhetoric to bully scientists this is an aspect of the misinformation campaign that needs covering. Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the paragraph again: "The promotion of misinformation has been used by the American far-right and others to stoke anti-China sentiments, and has led to increased anti-Asian activity on social media and in the real world. This has also resulted in the online bullying of scientists." It seems like everyone agrees that the last sentence is not correct, and that the truth is something more like "Information about COVID-19 has resulted in online bullying of scientists, in some cases involving untrue accusations." Maybe that should be the sentence instead? Though in my opinion, that's a pointless sentence as well, because random people posting incorrect information is hardly news; and the example given, of Fauci being involved, is not necessarily incorrect either - if gain-of-function research was in fact a cause, then Fauci indeed was involved, at least tangentially. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What? "Fauci being involved, is not necessarily incorrect either", that is 100% misinformation and a conspiracy therory not supported by any RS. It's clear the source is talking about "misrepresented" information being used as an excuse to bully scientists. As to "Random people posting incorrect information is hardly news", yes it is. That is why the news is talking about it. I am bowing out now before I say something bannable. I support the inclusion of this..."Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. The article itself notes that COVID-19 being the result of gain-of-function research is unlikely but has not been ruled yet. And the idea that Fauci authorized funding of such research has not been ruled out either, per this cited FactCheck.org analysis. So where's the misinformation, or the conspiracy? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We have a duty to default to what MEDRSes say on these topics of medical importance. The question of whether SARS-COV-2 is "engineered" or the result of "gain of function" research is impactful as to whether someone gets the vaccine, follows public health guidance, etc. And MEDRSes are extremely clear on this: there is zero evidence that SARS-COV-2 is the result of gain of function research, and a fair amount of evidence that it is a completely natural virus. Can the possibility be completely excluded? No, much like how we cannot completely exclude the idea that JFK was killed by the CIA. Or that aliens built the pyramids. The "possibility" of something is not a very useful metric. Only it's probability. And this conspiracy theory that the virus was made using gain-of-function research in any way is extremely extremely unlikely. It is, barring the intentional bioweapon theory, the most improbable of any theory yet put forth. There is a metric ton of evidence to this effect at WP:NOLABLEAK. The MEDRSes say this is B.S., so we should mirror that consensus. Proper and accurate summary of the source in question indicates scientists are being harassed about this theory. So we must depict that in our articles. Further, what you're doing here is WP:NOR, because you're trying to say that bullying is not possible if the theory is not misinformation. That's your interpretation, it isn't what the source says. I've added more sources demonstrating the link between harassment of public health officials and scientists and these conspiracy theories.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Also just wanted to say, that many many qualified scientists agree that what was going on in 2014 in Wuhan was not Gain-of-function research. The only people quoted in this and other articles saying it was gain-of-function research are already out there promoting other conspiracy theories, are already known as non-virologists getting deep into virological topics as if they are qualified when they are not, etc. etc. Richard Ebright has never conducted virology research in his career to my knowledge, and definitely never Coronaviruses. Why is he the one we are trusting to define what counts as GOF? Other qualified scientists quoted in these fact check articles say that it is not GOF. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand that "NOR" part. Bullying based on actual facts is certainly possible and happens every day - it just doesn't belong in this article, which is about misinformation. As for gain-of-function research - maybe you should be rewriting that part of this article, because it currently says that both the GOFR theory and Fauci's involvement are disputed and have not been debunked - and some of the cited sources say the same thing. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Verbose nonsense. Bullying of scientists and racist anti-Asian behaviours (in the context of this pandemic) are a direct consequence of misinformation (per the sources). I fail to see how anyone could argue that a direct consequence of the title subject does not go in the article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Verbose" seems like a weird description for what I wrote. So, is it your view that "there is a possibility that COVID-19 was caused by gain-of-function research" is misinformation? Because even this article doesn't say that. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was only referring to the stuff about bullying of scientists and the previous comments about it. AFAICS, scientists have ruled out "deliberate genetic manipulation", so it depends whether you count GoFR as "deliberate" or not (doesn't seem to me like something which happens by accident to me, but nvm). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what we think. What matters is what the sources say. And, further, the sentence about bullying in this article refers to all conspiracy theories, not just the one you are currently POV-pushing here about gain-of-function. So, again, it doesn't matter whether you or I or think the GOF conspiracy theory is misinformation (which, I will add, our sources say it is). What matters is that conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID-19 have led to the bullying of scientists and public health officials. And lots of RSes and MEDRSes support that statement.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that you added two more references to the "bullying of scientists" sentence. I read through them both, and neither of them refer to any COVID-related misinformation either, as far as I can tell, so I don't know what you mean about "all conspiracy theories". (I don't understand your description of me as "POV-pushing" either - of course I'm pushing my point of view; that's what a talk page is for.) Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are most definitively not for pushing a point of view. Their purpose is to discuss disagreements over article content (including how much weight to give to different sources, how to most accurately summarise them, ...). Ideally, any point of view expressed on a talk page should be that of relevant, secondary reliable sources (since that is what WP:NPOV usually requires for contentious matters), ideally based on the WP:BESTSOURCES (so WP:SCHOLARSHIP > WP:NEWSORG > most other sources) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose it depends on what mean by "pushing a point of view". People express opinions on talk pages all the time. But this discussion about POV is not that relevant here, since when I say that gain-of-function research remains a possibility, that's barely my opinion; it's backed up by the cited sources. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources mention misinformation of some form (even if they don't use the term directly): anti-vaxxers/anti-maskers/... - the Nature article specifically mentions a certain group using misinformation to harass scientists; the last two sources I added mention the politics and how this had lead to a toxic debate on many health issues, and the following: "Personal attacks have increased substantially, alongside accusations impugning the integrity and motivations of fellow researchers and clinicians." - "accusations impugning the integrity and motivations" = conspiracy theories (like the Wade article claiming scientists in the relevant field are all unethical, like the Twitter trolls harassing scientists like Andersen, ...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the specific misinformation? I didn't see any, though maybe I missed something. To be an anti-masker, for example, does not imply being misinformed; it simply means that one thinks the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is meant to have a pro-science POV. See also WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Anti-maskers are misinformed for the purposes of this article, and we in fact have an entire section in this article devoted to them. I don't really care about what you in particular think about masks,, because what we need to say in this article is very clear via the aforementioned guidelines. We need to depict what is the scientific consensus of relevant peer-reviewed literature on this topic. And that consensus says that masks work, that anti-maskers are misinformed, and that anti-maskers and conspiracy theorists have, during this pandemic, harassed scientists and public health officials. This is quickly approaching WP:NOTSTUCK. We have discussed this before, this talk page and its archives are literally riddled with identical discussions. My suggestion is to peruse those guidelines carefully, read the archives of this talk page, to get a better sense of what counts as notable and wiki-worthy.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 13:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "for the purposes of this article" means - statements are either accurate or they're not. Of course there are a lot of misinformed anti-mask arguments, but simply being anti-mask is not necessarily a misinformed position, since there are obvious tradeoffs involved. Again, I have yet to see any specific misinformation cited. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you do not WP:OWN this article, it does not matter what you think counts and does not count. What matters is what the consensus of wikipedia users says about the scientific consensus on this topic. And, as I wrote above, we have many many many archived discussions to look back on about this. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 14:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On review, I'm concerned that what you're doing here is civil POV-pushing. You've already said you are bringing a POV to this page, you've shown an ability to willfully misunderstand what a citation shows, and you are splitting hairs to an extent I did not think possible. If we talk about a concept or position on this page in reference to it being misinformed, and it is shown to have an association with bullying of scientists, then these citations are properly used.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I dropped out as I was starting to discuss users not content, if you have an issue with a user take it to wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, ANI is the proper place for such discussion. As of the moment, I still assume good faith in this situation. But I think if users start to edit-war or POV-push in more specific ways in relevant articles, then I'll bring to ANI personally. Of course anyone here is welcome to do that on their own, I'm just busy outside of wiki so I'm waiting until any case is steadfast enough to be worth pursuing.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 14:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't know what you mean by POV-pushing - a term used for editing articles, not for talk page discussions. Of course I'm sharing my opinions, i.e. my point of view. Am I doing it in contravention of the facts? I don't think so. If anything, it seems like the opposite: if this talk page is any indication, I'm the only one reading the references. A few other editors seem to be going the other way: starting with a personal opinion ("misinformed people are harassing scientists") and working backwards from there. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's see if we can distill what this source is saying, and where it might relate to this page's topic of misinformation. I'll add emphasis:
 * Others worry that the rhetoric around an alleged lab leak has grown so toxic that it’s fuelling online bullying of scientists and anti-Asian harassment in the United States, as well as offending researchers and authorities in China whose cooperation is needed.
 * In the Science letter, the authors note that Asian people have been harassed by those who blame COVID-19 on China, and attempt to dissuade abuse. Nonetheless, some aggressive proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis interpreted the letter as supporting their ideas. For instance, a neuroscientist belonging to a group that claims to independently investigate COVID-19 tweeted that the letter is a diluted version of ideas his group posted online last year. The same week, on Twitter, the neuroscientist also lashed out at Rasmussen, who has tried to explain studies suggesting a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 to the public. He called her fat, and then posted a derogatory comment about her sexual anatomy. Rasmussen says, “This debate has moved so far from the evidence that I don’t know if we can dial it back.”
 * So we do see it's explicitly called out that it's not the lab hypothesis itself, it's "the rhetoric around" it that's the source of the issue according to the source. The second emphasis of 'interpretation of the letter as support' sounds a lot like a synonym for 'misinformation' to me. And finally we have an example of the abuse, with Rasmussen's quote tying it further to misinformation, regarding how discussion has "moved so far from the evidence".
 * So there's a couple of things I see. Notable incidents beyond this one? If so, let's cite them further. If not, should we consider naming the neuroscientist Nature left unnamed (and can we portray it while respecting WP:BLP)? How much of a link does rhetoric alone have to misinformation, and does this source meet that threshold for linking the two? I'd argue it does make that link, and would give more weight to an argument around either the notability of the abuse directed toward Rasmussen or narrowing the claim to only those the sources directly cite. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no question, based on the references (some of which you quoted) that some discussion around COVID-19 has gotten "toxic", vicious, counterproductive, etc. And there's also no question that there have been wildly different interpretations of the facts - like the neuroscientist who claimed his ideas were plagiarized (if I understand it correctly). Does any of it rise to the level of "misinformation"? I haven't seen evidence of that. Maybe it goes without saying, but this article is called "COVID-19 misinformation", not "Ugly behavior related to COVID-19". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said above and I will say here again, that is not for us to decide. To do so would be original research. We must follow what our sources tell us, and in this case, our sources are saying that misinformation linked to COVID-19 is fueling bullying and harassment of researchers and public health officials. See below for more relevant quotes.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 17:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts. 1) What's the reason for the toxicity and counter-productiveness? I'd argue that it's specifically because of the misinformation inherent in the topic (all the way back to last year's Nature letter that resulted in most scientists advocating for the lab theory being dismissed, because of the concerns over those using such an idea for mis-/dis-information). Even if we need to cite that better (I think this AP story makes the link more clear, with specific named examples of multiple scientists being harassed while attempting to dispell misinformation ), and restrain our discussion on the topic to misinformation-fuelled toxicity/bullying (not merely disagreements in viewpoint. 2) I'm trying to identify "the neuroscientist", but I suspect this was not a case of alleged 'plagiarism'. It reads more like the misinformation being discussed elsewhere in this article, misrepresenting the science letter as claiming the lab leak was 'more likely than not'. If anyone can find a more direct link to the incident being referred to, that would probably help clarify. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's some more analysis of the sourced we've cited, and quotes that demonstrate how they link misinformation and harassment.

From that same Nature News article: Divisive COVID ‘lab leak’ debate prompts dire warnings from researchers:

(the subtitle)

Okay, so this article backs up the idea that scientists are saying that misinformation and abuse is linked. I've not included every single quote from that article, because others have included many above. But we need MEDRS or RSes (at the very least) showing that experts on the issue are saying it is happening in order to have it in wiki-voice. So let's look at the other refs:

JAMA Viewpoint article: Attacks on Public Health Officials During COVID-19 (backed up as notable by this CIDRAP news piece (Stop attacking public health officials, experts plead):

So this viewpoint piece demonstrates that the relevant experts are saying that misunderstanding of the evidence and cognitive biases are contributing to harassment of scientists and public health officials during the COVID-19 pandemic. What is this, if not misinformation?

CTV News Article: Winnipeg epidemiologist faces online threats, as concerns about COVID-19 misinformation deepen:

So this, altogether, allows us to put it in wiki-voice. We have RSes saying this is happening, and where it's coming from. What more could you want? This is far beyond what we have in many many other articles sourcing this kind of content.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 17:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "What more could you want?" How about a single actual bit of COVID-19-related misinformation that's cited as leading to abuse? Otherwise all we have are vague intimations (and not even that, from that first reference) that some people just don't get how things work and as a result are flinging hatred at scientists. Which I'm sure is true - you only need to spend 5 minutes on Twitter to know that not everyone is well-informed about what they're talking about - but does it have anything to do with the specific set of medical-related misinformation listed in this article? I haven't seen any evidence of that. Korny O&#39;Near (talk)
 * Okay. I hope you find what you are looking for, then. Consensus among editors in this little discussion is clearly in favor of inclusion. If you disagree, then my suggestion would be to start an RfC to try and get more involvement.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your lack of interest in having any actual evidence is telling, but thank you for your honesty. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

ABC news article
The issue about this is WP:N WP:DUE, WP:LAUNDRY, plus WP:MEDRS.

Why is this survey, in particular, notable? I have no secondary sources showing that it is. No sources saying that this survey was special or unique or useful or notable to the general public. So WP:N WP:DUE points to no inclusion.

There are many many news stories and ad-hoc surveys about this exact question. If all such articles are notable, why aren't we including them all? WP:Laundry WP:DUE tells us we should not. We should instead summarize the current state of the scientific consensus about this question.

And what sources are appropriate to use for understanding the scientific consensus on this question? MEDRS. Because this is a question with direct impact on whether or not patients get the vaccine, follow guidelines, and hence endanger themselves and others. Indeed, our sources in this article show us that harassment of public health officials and scientists is linked to belief in these theories. People who believe them are more likely to endanger themselves and others.

Per MEDRS, we must use scientific journal articles (preference for reviews) and consensus statements from professional bodies and organizations. Which we already have in this article, thanks to the contributions of many different editors.

ABC News does not meet these criteria. So this source and referenced text is not suited for inclusion in this article.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 13:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:N and WP:LAUNDRY are irrelevant here. WP:N applies to entire articles; there's no requirement to establish the notability of individual facts (I'm not sure what it means to prove the notability of a fact anyway). As for WP:LAUNDRY, it applies to pages that already contain laundry lists, not ones where there's a potential for a laundry list. By your reasoning, no article about a book or film should contain any individual reviews, because once you allow one review, then you could have 100.
 * You're on firmer ground with WP:MEDRS - it would be great to have some peer-reviewed meta-analysis that surveys scientists in the fields, and shows how their opinions about COVID origins have changed over time (if they have at all). Barring that, though, a survey done by a reliable source is the next best thing, and it sheds quite a bit of light on whether, and to what extent, scientific opinion has changed. It's no different from what's currently in the article: right now there's a single sentence about the current state of scientific opinion ("scientific opinion that an accidental leak is possible, but unlikely, has remained steady"), which itself has four references, all of which are general news articles as opposed to scientific papers. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right that I was misremembering WP:N and WP:LAUNDRY, but wrong that this changes the discussion. WP:DUE results in the same conclusion. You're also confused about what is meant by "scientific consensus." It means the consensus of published data in relevant articles in the peer-reviewed literature of the relevant topic area, not the "majority opinion" of all scientists. This is a very common misunderstanding. Here's some further reading on that.   A survey is not useful to us and does not apply to MEDRS, unless it is published by a professional body or consensus-gathering organization such as the AMA, WHO, or IDSA.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I never said anything about either consensus or majority opinion; I was talking about the breakdown of opinions among scientists, and whether it has changed. Do you think the current sentence on this subject ("scientific opinion that an accidental leak is possible, but unlikely, has remained steady") should be removed as well? Your arguments against including the ABC News survey seem to apply just as well to this sentence, given its sources. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I think that sentence is accurate and reflects the sources cited. MEDRS does not necessitate that we use scholarly articles, it just strongly suggests it. In any case, we use the best sources we have until we can find better. And there actually are a lot of MEDRS-compliant articles that depict this consensus. BTW, I actually wrote that sentence. I'll add more MEDRS sources if you like. (EDIT: just added some,see these.)   -- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a strange justification; a sentence about the ABC News study would also be accurate and would reflect the sources cited. But sure, adding any of these "MEDRS sources" would be useful; at the very least, it would provide some logic for the different handling of these two sentences. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you're confused. I did not intend that statement to be a "justification" for why we treat these two things differently. The justification for that would be WP:DUE, as above. We should not cover the lab leak theory more than it is covered in WP:MEDRS, because then we give it undue weight. This one sentence and the particulars of other parts of this article are enough imo. I do not think a single survey in ABC news meets that threshold, and enters into undue weight. It adds nothing that this sentence does not already have, in the appropriate wiki-voice.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how this "survey" is relevant, though. It's certainly not a survey in the scientific or empirical sense of the word, just based on sample size and selection, not to mention response rate.  They sent out some questions to 27 scientists who signed a letter, less than half of them (12) responded, and it's not clear how detailed these responses are, or even whether their responses reflect any sort of scientific consensus.  I guess I don't really see what this adds to the article.  At the very least this should not be framed as a "survey". Hyperion35 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Side question. Does the ABC news source actually apply to the "Infection of lab workers" section? When ABC News says "lab leak", are they referring to an infection of lab workers as "a natural origin"? The more important quote on the poll is probably Dr. Charles Calisher, a Colorado State University virologist and the lone signatory to completely change his position, told ABC News that he now believes that "there is too much coincidence" to ignore the lab-leak theory and that "it is more likely that it came out of that lab." instead.
 * Also, let's perhaps not forget the more important, more broadly applicable topic covered in the article as well: Despite some fringe skepticism -- often emanating from voices with a long record of criticizing China -- the idea that COVID-19 jumped from animal to human somewhere in nature became the overwhelming consensus. Political voices in favor of the lab-leak theory, particularly from President Donald Trump, served to polarize the issue further and largely pushed the scientific community away from a willingness to consider the lab-leak theory. Seems like the source we've been looking for on "was misinformation propogated for anti-china reasons or not".
 * In short, I'm not sure this really belongs on this article in the way it's currently written. Is ABC News saying the original letter was misinformation, or is the polling information more suited for the Investigations article? To wit: Does any of it rise to the level of "misinformation"? Bakkster Man (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of this is misinformation, but the whole section on the lab leak theory is there in this article, I suppose, because it helps to clarify which origin theories are considered misinformation and which are not - and which ones were formerly considered misinformation (by some). Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Then let's word the addition better, possibly with a more direct source. The proposed wording seemed more like it was there to shoehorn in that Dr. Charles Calisher had changed his view on the lab hypothesis (oddly, without naming him like ABC news did), than to indicate that the overall views had changed. If that's the goal, let's reference the Trump polarization resulting in an unwillingness to give the theory consideration instead. It's more directly clear why the forceful rejection happened in the first place, and what changed to bring about the shift we're seeing. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a shift among the media, and a (possible) shift among scientists. They're not necessarily related, although possibly both are related to an aversion to Trump. Anyway, whatever you add will probably be beneficial. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I rearranged the section, and paired the ABC article with the previously cited Time article linking the initial outright rejection to Trump-related backlash. I'm sure it can be improved further with more specific citations. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts I wanted to run by you on the current wording: Some politicians, journalists and scientists have said that they dismissed, or avoided discussing, the lab leak theory during the first year of the pandemic as a result of Donald Trump's embrace of the theory. I cleared up the significant MOS:SAID concern with using the word "admitted" that could give the impression of wrongdoing. I thought of going further, but wanted to run it by you first in case I missed something.
 * Do the cited sources support that "politicians, journalists, and scientists have said that they..." did what the sentence says? Starting with the "have said" part, I didn't see an 'admission' from someone who did this. The quotes you mentioned in the citations didn't make this claim (the closest being Alina Chan saying that others had shied away from it for these reasons), mostly seeming to make the claim on behalf of others rather than citing anyone explaining their own rationale for doing so. Couple this with the "and", and I think we'll need either citations for each of those three groups having expressed this was behind the change, or a rewrite to split these groups and/or change the claim to reflect that someone else said those people avoided the topic for that reason. Let me know what you think. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, and I probably should have worded it better, since seemingly no one has explicitly said that they themselves should have done a better job. For journalists, I had a recollection that this article until at some point recently had a reference to Jonathan Karl's statement that some in the media "have egg on their face". Whether or not it was there before, it wasn't there now, so I just added it. For politicians, I was thinking of the quote from this article by former Clinton official Jamie Metzl that "There was so little space, even for Democrats, even for progressives, to ask the questions". But he's not necessarily talking about politicians there. So probably "politicians" should be removed from the sentence. As far as the phrasing, I don't know how to state it without sounding awkward and passive voice, like "Some have said that some journalists and scientists dismissed...". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is something useful in that article, and it isn't just an opinion or reporting on said opinion from someone (I haven't looked), it would be better if you wrote something new based on it, rather than just adding for the sake of it (WP:CITEBOMB is my main concern - we already have an extensive listing of reputable sources, and I think that you might have also added it at the end of the wrong sentence, fwiw). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: you didn't read the article I added as a reference, but you just assumed that it had no purpose and so removed it? Presumably you didn't read my comment just above yours either, where I explained why I added that reference. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I preferred the original wording of "has been contrasted with", though in hindsight I'd probably say "has been linked to". Neutral language that doesn't imply either side is right/wrong, nor that it's a case of mea culpas. I've made another tweak, just wanted to loop you in to avoid an edit war.
 * And, FWIW, there's a Hill citation on the page already which I think covers what the Karl reference does. I'd suggest reusing that, where it makes sense, instead of adding another citation. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think that's the reference I was remembering; it was Jonathan Chait, not Jonathan Karl. And I think your rewrite is good; I would just add to the sentence a phrase like "by both journalists and scientists". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)