Talk:Lancet letter (COVID-19)

"Lead author"
In academic authorship, the lead author of an article is usually placed first in the list of authors, which gave the appearance that the lead author of the Lancet letter was Charles Calisher. This is actually not true. In high energy physics, mathematics, and economics, for example, all authors are typically listed alphabetically. And, worse, I would say that there are many instances where the last author writes a draft. Such as with cases where everyone listed is a professor or of relatively equal standing. The first author is often the most junior in such cases, and generally tasked with editing, collating, and spearheading the effort. I think the way this is described is pretty misleading. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't this WP:SYNTH? The Le Monde article clearly explains this part. LondonIP (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see where that phrase is used explicitly in the Le Monde piece. Could you provide a quote? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Le chercheur désigné comme premier auteur et « auteur correspondant » (corresponding author, en anglais) – censé avoir rédigé la première version du texte, selon les règles de l’édition scientifique – est le microbiologiste Charles Calisher, professeur émérite à l’université d’Etat du Colorado. Mais, selon des correspondances obtenues par l’ONG US Right to Know (USRTK), en vertu de la loi américaine sur l’accès aux données, le texte en question a en réalité été rédigé par le zoologue Peter Daszak, qui n’apparaît que plus loin dans l’ordre des auteurs (les Anglo-Saxons parlent d’authorship). « Peter Daszak a rédigé le premier jet du texte et l’a amené jusqu’à la publication, confirme M. Calisher, dans un courriel au Monde. Les auteurs ont été listés de manière alphabétique. Peter, et non moi, est l’“auteur correspondant”. » . LondonIP (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What expertise does Le Monde have in "les règles de l’édition scientifique" ? Or even the norms of scientific publishing in general? We would not trust a plumbing journal to tell us what the culture is in quantum physics. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Par Stéphane Foucart and Chloé Hecketsweiler of Le Monde got it right here and this isn't about quantum physics. Please cite a source for your claim if you think it's a problem. LondonIP (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * please self revert this . This is a biomedical subject and the source is correct in its definition of lead authorship in this instance. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is a biomedical subject, should we not preference biomedical sources as recommended by WP:BMI? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have any source for your claim, in MEDRS or RS, then cite them. WP:MEDRS and WP:BMI aren't carte blanche arguments to delete content sourced to high quality RS like Le Monde. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole point of WP:BMI is that some information is complex and specialized enough that otherwise high-quality sources are no longer reliable. You're the one who invoked biomedical information, which states Generally speaking, such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works. I tend to feel that the typical placement of authors wouldn't typically be considered BMI, do you agree given that context that this piece of information isn't biomedical? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The context in which I said this is biomedical was as a response to the above claim that academic lead authorship in high energy physics, mathematics, and economics is alphabet based. Clearly this falls into biology where lead authorship is not alphabet based, and this is a matter of academic integrity and Academic dishonesty. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's an interesting statement to be made universally. There are certainly many instances of alphabetical authorship in Biology and Medicine. See the following:  It is not a universal that all biology papers are ordered by contribution. Indeed, Calisher himself has said this one was ordered alphabetically. I would tell you that is often the case for editorials like this which are not research publications, where most authors are on equal footing, seniority-wise, and come from a variety of institutions. Similar to how "consensus statement" or "conference committee" authorships work. Most biology and medicine papers are ordered by contribution, but certainly not all. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are certainly many instances of alphabetical authorship in Biology and Medicine. ← This isn't a good argument to omit an attributed claim from Le Monde about the authorship of this letter. Despite the cited instances of alphabetical authorship, it is not at all common in biology and medicine; and not even for editorials. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * An attributed claim! I don't believe that was the original usage . If that's how you'd like to have it included, we should be attributing to the original sources if possible. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This claim could be attributed, but I echo LondonIP's ask for sources supporting the claim that alphabetic isn't the norm in life sciences. Most sources I checked say papers in life sciences are ordered by contribution. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In https://www.thelancet.com/journals/Lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext, and also in the very first WBM capture https://web.archive.org/web/20200219111912/https://www.thelancet.com/journals/Lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext , Charles Calisher's name is followed by the letter envelope symbol, which usually means "corresponding author". Corresponding authors usually are the leading authors. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * without any sources supporting your edits,, would it be okay for me to revert them now, or can you do so yourselves? ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You tagged Ahecht in this, did you intend to tag me? My edit, the second of those two, (switching revealed to confirmed) is supported by the source. I would not support you reverting either edit, as I see they are improvements to the NPOV of the section, making it less sensationalist. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that your edit brought the text more in line with MOS:SAID. I've taken a stab at going another step to phrase it as 'according to' to hopefully get even closer to the style guides, and perhaps reduce the run-on nature of the sentence. Probably more room to improve the "their hands should not be seen on it" sentence (is this a quote, or should we avoid a MOS:EUPHEMISM?), and I would expect the Daszak addendum be mentioned in this section (as it's referenced in the final sentences). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the "hands should not be seen" part either needs to be put as a quote (if it is) or removed, because it is definitely not wiki-style! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no prejudice against a further RM to gauge consensus for, say, COVID-19 Lancet letter or Calisher et al. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Lancet letter (COVID-19) → Lancet letter – WP:CONCISE. It is my understanding that parenthetical disambiguators should not be used unless there are multiple articles with identical titles. Fine with either, but would like some discussion of it. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 00:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this was moved because the term Lancet letter is supposedly generic but there is no other article called or even known by the name Lancet letter making (COVID-19) unnecessary.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alternate move To COVID-19 Lancet letter per WP:PRECISION. While parenthetical disambiguation is inappropriate, I don't believe the proposed title is unambiguous, despite not sharing a name with any other article. There have been other letters in The Lancet, such as The Lancet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Lancet letter, as there are no other known "Lancet letters" which have this level of notoriety. This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. EDIT: Many of the comments below have convinced me. I still think "Lancet letter" is a good title given that no other letters are notable enough with enough RS coverage to require their own article. However, there still likely needs to be disambiguation given that there are many other notable letters to the editor published in The Lancet. As such, I would support Calisher et al. as the best title suggested so far, with the current title "Lancet letter (COVID-19)" as a distant second. (edited 23:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 09:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you search Google for "Lancet letter", the only result on the first page that is about this letter is this very Wikipedia article. The first 7 results are about completely different letters, the 8th is this article, the 9th is the Wikipedia article for The Lancet, and the 10th is about another Lancet letter that said the opposite (that scientists should still consider the lab leak theory). Going to the second page, the first results is a Daily Mail (which isn't allowed to be used as a source on Wikipedia) article about this letter, there a video about this letter a little further down, there are four results about about the letter refuting this one, and the rest are about unrelated letters (including the Gaza letter mentioned above). I'm not seeing any evidence that this letter is the primary topic. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose or support alternative move. "Lancet letter" doesn't appear to be a commonly used name by itself -- it is almost always in the context of "the Lancet letter about COVID-19" or "the letter published in the Lancet discussing X", or others along those lines. As a result, the new name would just introduce more ambiguity, given there are other Lancet letters as noted above, without providing a better title for the page that accurately captures usage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 22:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to "Lancet Letter", but I would Support move to Calisher et al. per Yaksar. I actually saw this article at AfC and passed on accepting it because I couldn't figure out what the article name should be (especially since this COVID-19 origins letter in Lancet has gotten just as much press). None of the sources refer to it as the "Lancet letter", and that name implies it would be an article about the generic concept of a letter in Lancet (as opposed to, say, a published study). --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Oppose per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and Ahecht; a very Wikipedia-self-navel-gazing title for using a widespread correspondence type -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very obviously needs disambiguating. "Lancet letter" is utterly meaningless without. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and oppose Calisher et al as Calisher was not even the real lead author. Read the "Lead author" discussion above. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"alleged" conflict of interest
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)&diff=1072249668&oldid=1072221427

Shibbolethink says it should remain an "alleged" conflict of interest to maintain an NPOV. In Lancet_letter_(COVID-19) wikipedia states that they admitted a conflict of interest. Instead of "alleged" should we say "undeclared"? 2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Who admitted a COI? That's not really what happened... What The Lancet said was: "There may be differences in opinion as to what constitutes a competing interest." And then Daszak amended his statement just to describe what the EHA does. He does not describe any of this as competing interest, and leaves it up to the reader to decide that. A subtle but important difference. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That was broadly my thought going back to the original way we described it. No competing interests declared initially > allegations of an undisclosed COI > Lancet allows updated disclosures > Daszak only author to update > Lancet published with updated disclosure (no retraction). We can describe that process without making firm conclusions. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we remove source #29 titled "Under-fire Lancet admits conflict of interest on lab-leak letter" from Times Higher Education? Is that a RS? Are we allowed to say something different than a RS even if they might have read the Lancet's statements differently than us? 2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9 (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and got rid of it. Thanks. 2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * These edits could be interpreted as being disruptive to make a WP:POINT, please refrain if that's the case. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If we're not going to use a source arnt we supposed to remove it? 2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9 (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry was unaware of WP:HEADLINE. I see its been fixed. 2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you think policy says about that? Do you think you reached consensus for the change in the 8 minutes between your two edits above? Bakkster Man (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Firefangledfeathers said we're supposed to discount headlines because they lie to grab attention and often does not match what is written in it's article's body. I assumed the article stated the same as the headline, and if we weren't going to say definitively that there was a conflict as stated in the headline, then we were obviously not going to use a story that states that. 2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "Lie". More that headlines often exaggerate or make something mundane into a conflict in order to attract clicks. I would agree, however, that The Telegraph is not a great source for this content and if we have anything better we should use it instead. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sarah Knapton at the Telegraph seems to be pushing a POV about the lab leak, often stretching the evidence to match her narative. Can we petition to declare her not a RS? 2600:1700:8660:E180:5CEA:F263:C04E:F83A (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

minor suggestion
First source (the letter itself): Should we change the parameter "authors=4" to "authors=5"? That would make Daszak visible. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me, I made the edit. If he had been listed 12th or something I might have disagreed, but I think a change of 1 additional author is imminently reasonable to display the author about which most of the attention has been given. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The author with the most attention has clearly caused a conflict of interest.The question rise :How is the Science integrity of the other signers of the Lancet Letter(19-2-2020)? In the Netherlands has The LOWI (Landelijk orgaan wetenschappelijke integritei) decided (LOWI advice 2021-15) that the letter is a product of science (correspondence) and therefore the LOWI can advise about science integrity about the in the Netherlands working virologists. As a result of this, a Dutch signer declared that he was undependent for signing the letter and also declared that he , by signing the letter, did not exclude the lab leak of Sars Cov 2 (see website LOWI 2022-09) - EilertBorchert (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)